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.
I think a lot of people have no clue what the left lane is for. They think it is purely the "fast lane". It is the passing lane. I'm fine with people in that lane as long as they are actively passing someone. You don't have to be going 90MPH to do that. It also means you shouldn't take 5 minutes to pass a car.
It is not the drive as fast as you want and everyone else going any slower than you has to immediately move over or shouldn't be there in the first place lane.
I think a lot of people have no clue what the left lane is for. They think it is purely the "fast lane". It is the passing lane. I'm fine with people in that lane as long as they are actively passing someone. You don't have to be going 90MPH to do that. It also means you shouldn't take 5 minutes to pass a car.
It is not the drive as fast as you want and everyone else going any slower than you has to immediately move over or shouldn't be there in the first place lane.
i mostly agree, but if someone is approaching you and you're going 75, it's curteous to move over, let them pass, and move back. sure, you don't have to, but i see it as the polite thing to do.
i mostly agree, but if someone is approaching you and you're going 75, it's curteous to move over, let them pass, and move back. sure, you don't have to, but i see it as the polite thing to do.
plus, let them go ahead to clear the cops!
LOL, Yup, I think that way, too. Better to let somebody go faster, and be the bait.
Only problem is ... I remember a Ziggy cartoon, where a cop had pulled him over and was writing a ticket. The caption was "Yeah, I know a lot of other people were going faster than you, but you were the only one I could catch."
i think, from the state police i know in a few states, that most officers do target people driving dangerously. whether you want to admit it or not, 85mph in many vehicles is dangerous. if a sports car is going 80mph and has good tires, good brakes, and a good driver, then that's reasonable. but if anything happens, it's a simple fact that that driver won't be able to react in time. especially since most drivers i see do not allow proper distance between vehicles accounting for their speed.
how many of those people driving 80-85mph know how long and how many feet it takes their car to stop in optimal conditions? i'd bet maybe 10%, and i'm being generous.
it may be that more accidents happen on local roads, but that doesn't prove that driving on a highway at 80 isn't more dangerous than driving at 60. simple physics class proves that getting into an accident at 80 is more dangerous than at 60.
This doesn't make sense to me. The thing is... you're arguing against traffic moving at 80-85 mph because it's unsafe, but traffic already moves at this speed and I don't consider our highways particularly unsafe at all. And you even admit that reaction time differences which can cause accidents are a result of following too closely. This is my point all along - traffic enforcement should be directed toward to cause of crashes (following too closely, etc.) rather than simply a factor in the severity of a potential crash.
it's not the speed, it's the a-hole behind the wheel. if everyone would drive like they do on the autobahn (you wouldn't DREAM of driving in the left lane unless to pass), it wouldn't be as much as an issue. although I do have a problem with an 80 mph speed limit in a state like NJ.
I'm actually not arguing for increased speed limits at all. What I'm arguing is that speed enforcement is the weakest and most ineffective form of traffic enforcement as far as preventing accidents, and police should focus on other areas of enforcement such as those I've mentioned. Also, I believe that with a speeding violation, the state should have to prove that your speed constituted an unsafe practice or danger to other vehicles. This means that driving at 85 mph in rain and fog may be dangerous, but driving that same speed on a clear day with little to no traffic is perfectly safe. Yes, this could get sticky, but I'm arguing in an idealist sense.
The bottom line is that, because of ease and convenience, traffic laws are being enforced rather selectively, and unfortunately the law that is being selectively enforced more than any other does not make our roads particularly safer.
This doesn't make sense to me. The thing is... you're arguing against traffic moving at 80-85 mph because it's unsafe, but traffic already moves at this speed and I don't consider our highways particularly unsafe at all. And you even admit that reaction time differences which can cause accidents are a result of following too closely. This is my point all along - traffic enforcement should be directed toward to cause of crashes (following too closely, etc.) rather than simply a factor in the severity of a potential crash.
no, you said most go 80-85 because they feel they can handle it. i am displaying they can't handle it, because i rarely see them actually allow the right stopping distance. sure, if everyone allowed 5 car lengths on the GSP and didn't weave, then 85 would be safe for most well maintained cars. but then again, if no one murdered anyone, we wouldn't have a law prohibiting murder.
laws are made as a result of people not following common sense. if everyone drove responsibly, we wouldn't need any laws for monitoring traffic.
NJ drivers can't even seem to maintain a speed when there's an uphill grade. i don't have confidence that most can safely operate their Suburban at 85mph.
I'm actually not arguing for increased speed limits at all. What I'm arguing is that speed enforcement is the weakest and most ineffective form of traffic enforcement as far as preventing accidents, and police should focus on other areas of enforcement such as those I've mentioned. Also, I believe that with a speeding violation, the state should have to prove that your speed constituted an unsafe practice or danger to other vehicles. This means that driving at 85 mph in rain and fog may be dangerous, but driving that same speed on a clear day with little to no traffic is perfectly safe. Yes, this could get sticky, but I'm arguing in an idealist sense.
The bottom line is that, because of ease and convenience, traffic laws are being enforced rather selectively, and unfortunately the law that is being selectively enforced more than any other does not make our roads particularly safer.
i think we're on the same page. i got pulled over in my brand new legacy gt doing 88 on the NJTP. I did it without even realizing it, thought i was going 75-80 which is where i usually hover when there's not a lot of cars around me. i was the only car on the road. i'd love for the law to be like this, but as you said, it's idealist. it assumes that people would follow a lot of common sense and be well-educated drivers. judging by the lack of turn signals, lack of lights on at dusk or when it's raining, the amount of cut-offs i witness, etc, we need these stupid laws in place.
is it really necessary to tell people to not text while driving? i mean, really?
no, you said most go 80-85 because they feel they can handle it. i am displaying they can't handle it, because i rarely see them actually allow the right stopping distance.
So issue summonses for not allowing a safe-enough distance, then the upped speed would be perfectly safe.
So issue summonses for not allowing a safe-enough distance, then the upped speed would be perfectly safe.
i like cops. i give them a lot of credit. but, my job deals with designing controls based on risks, so this doesn't just apply to cops. if you leave people a lot of room for interpretation...it's not going to go well. if you go so ambigious as to allowing cops to give tickets for people "Driving dangerously" then it's going to be darn near impossible for them to ever prove it, making enforcement difficult.
i think enforcement is done poorly in general right now. and it's easy to view it as a revenue stream, as evidenced by the fact that tons of cops are out in every state now because of budget issues. but, the spirit of the laws in place, i pretty much agree with. in fact, i think some should be even more strict with more severe penalties.
my cop did use disgression with my ticket. he wrote me up as 74 in a 65. first speed tier, so lowest fine. it was only $80. he could have given me a warning, but i think warnings are kinda bogus anyways. he did his job, wrote a ticket, and cut me a break based on the situation.
If you can pull it off, the best option at times is to hypnotize the cop to give your ticket to the next car coming down the road doing the same thing. Happened to me once, without trying, was fun as the cop handed me my credentials and told me "I'm going to give this ticket to that car over there". That deserved a thank you and a smile from me
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.
