"I drive 55mph" on the 65mph interstate.

[bestclimb]

Originally Posted by songman

I find that extraordinary. If you're driving 60 in a 65 maximum zone, you a required to move up to the maximum or pull over to let others through??? What if you rather speed up than pull over, inadvertently flick over 65 and get a ticket for speeding? FF's sake.

No offence, but I think some of you folk, or your legislators, need to work on what the word "maximum" means.

If you want to be pedantic about it and make it into something it's not so you can cut that down then yea it's pretty ridiculous. Meanwhile in reality it is more ridiculous to think you would get ticketed for inadvertently flicking over the limit, or that it's an issue when traveling that close to the speed limit or are awake enough to use the slow lane in the passing lanes, keep an eye out for pull outs, or are willing to drop onto the shoulder and bleed some speed off to let the train of cars pass you. (FF' sake, really, you're that angry about it?).

I drive well below the limit and would let faster drivers by with out this law. I have a right to drive slower if I want, and vehicles coming up from behind must yield right of way. That does not mean that I would want to prevent them from getting along with their trip.

The law was written (and does a good job of) to prevent a situation where a slower driver would collect large train of vehicles, do nothing to let them by,then you get a few drivers in a hurry who would try to pass at any opportunity. Often with little regard to the possibility of oncoming traffic. That situation caused (and continues to cause though less so now) a high rate of head ons.

Alaska is pretty vast and a slight reduction in average speed can cause a significant increase in trip time.

[NeilBlanchard]

The minimum speed (if I am remembering correctly?) is 45MPH. If you are traveling slower than 45MPH, you are required to put on your 4-way flashers.

So, 55-60mph is perfectly legal and totally legit, and like *everybody is supposed to* you should be in the right/traveling lane. Nobody is supposed to stay in the left/passing lane - stay right except to pass is the law.

The posted speed limit is just that - the maximum limit, and *in theory* no one should be driving faster than that - so the idea that everyone has to drive at or near that limit is just silly. If you are driving faster than a vehicle ahead of you - you have a choice: slow down or pass and then move back to the traveling lane. No one is obliged to get out of your way, as long as they are going at or above the minimum speed.

[user removed]

Originally Posted by cbaber

I think we have to take a step back in this thread and remember something important. None of us try to block traffic or do slow driving out of spite. I've been arguing that as long as we are within the legal limits, we can drive slow. That doesn't mean it's always appropriate to drive slow. There is a clear definition about what is legal, but I haven't been talking about is what is practical.

For example the other night I was driving home, doing some pulse and glide from 65-50 mph. I noticed a semi coming up behind me in the right lane, and a car was in the process of passing the semi in the left lane. At this point I was EOC'ing at about 60 mph. Now legally I could have kept EOC'ing down to 50 mph, causing the semi to slow down and wait to pass. But out of respect, I chose to stop EOC'ing and speed up to 65. This allowed enough time and space for the car to pass the semi before they reached me, allowing the semi to merge and pass without slowing down.

That kind of thing happens daily. I always try to stay out of the way. I do what I can, when I can.

I'm not so sure about "None of us try to bock traffic". It would seem that some are going to drive their way regardless of other traffic. While it certainly is legal as long as they stay above the minimum posted speed, it certainly is not the safest way to drive-ride defensively.

Second major consideration is traffic volume. In the highest 10% of traffic density (in the US) which is where I drive, you risk a lot by being 10-20 MPH slower than the bumper to bumper traffic which is a daily routine in Hampton Roads.

Hypermiling to me is driving efficiently. It IS NOT driving that creates greater danger to me or others who are in fairly close proximity to me. Sure, I'll putt along at 45 in a 55 zone on a non divided 4 lane road, but when I see a flock of groupies closing in on my rear end, I'll pick up my pace to the speed limit and even beyond, not because I have to or even want to, but becasue it lowers my overall risk of accident-injury. If you are crippled for life, does it really matter whose fault it is, you're still crippled for life.

My driving style is completely adaptive, no traffic, I can hypermile to my hearts content. As traffic volume increases I look for drafting partners, preferrably large vehicles in the right lane that are driven by professionals. 45 on the Interstates around here, when everyone else is going 70-80 (70 zone) is just stupid, especially when you can drive down US60 which runs parallel to the Interstate and is basically deserted.

It's sad to see members here go after each other over their technique. I think a lot of it is the individuals driving environment. If I lived out away from any population and could drive down a deserted road without ever bothering anyone else then I would drive completely differently. I have plenty of time to spend in the effort. Conversely if I am driving on a road where 50,000 cars will pass over the same spot in a single lane, every day (86,400 seconds per day-do the math) then I will drive the speed of traffic, regardless of that speed.

To do otherwise is insanity.

regards
Mech

[NeilBlanchard]

It is insanity to waste fuel because of what others are doing. I'm sorry, driving at 55-60MPH in a 65MPH zone is not unsafe. It's the frickin' drivers going 75MPH+ who are unsafe...

[tjts1]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

It is insanity to waste fuel because of what others are doing.

The only insane thing is wasting not only your time but other people's time because you want to save a penny per mile.

Originally Posted by songman

I find that extraordinary. If you're driving 60 in a 65 maximum zone, you a required to move up to the maximum or pull over to let others through??? What if you rather speed up than pull over, inadvertently flick over 65 and get a ticket for speeding? FF's sake.

No offence, but I think some of you folk, or your legislators, need to work on what the word "maximum" means.

No. You're required to move over to the right regardless of the speed limit.

It doesn't say anything about speed limit. The speed limit and slower traffic keep right are separate laws. Just because the guy behind you is speeding doesn't give you the right to block traffic. You are both breaking the law. Leave the job of law enforcement to the police.

Another set of signs that seems to confound people, especially those visiting California from out of state in their over sized RVs (I'm looking at you WA and OR residents)







EDIT:
Another sign found in many western states people seem to ignore.

Keep Right

Watch for signs on Texas multi-lane highways that read "Left Lane For Passing Only." These signs let you know that the left lane on a divided highway is not a "fast" lane; it is a passing lane.

After you pass someone, move into the right lane once you've safely cleared the vehicle. Impeding the flow of traffic by continuing to drive in the left lane is punishable by a fine of up to $200.

http://www.txdot.gov/driver/share-ro...y-driving.html

[cbaber]

Originally Posted by tjts1

The only insane thing is wasting not only your time but other people's time because you want to save a penny per mile.

No. You're required to move over to the right regardless of the speed limit.

It doesn't say anything about speed limit.

Anyone going 65 mph in the left lane can stay as long as they like on a road that has a 65 mph speed limit and that sign. It would be illegal to go any faster than 65 mph, so technically speaking a person going 65 mph is the fastest on the road. Those going slower than the speed limit are required to move over to the right unless they are passing slower traffic. As for law enforcement, they are going to pull over the people speeding and not the person driving the speed limit in the left lane.

And about wasting time, you are once again ignoring the facts everyone knows. A person going 70 mph only saves about 9 seconds of time per mile of driving. Assuming my commute is 50 miles, it only takes me 8 more minutes to get there. And to gain 8 minutes we have to assume the drive is perfect. In reality, stop signs and traffic reduce the effect of higher speeds. In the real world the person going 70 mph would only gain about 5 minutes of time compared to the person going 60. Out of about 45 minutes of driving, 5 minutes is nothing. But in exchange for those 5 minutes I gain about 5-7 mpg by reducing my speed. It's not wasting time when I drive slow. It's saving gas. I consider driving above 60 mph wasting gas instead of gaining time.

[tjts1]

Originally Posted by cbaber

anyone going 65 mph in the left lane can stay as long as they like on a road that has a 65 mph speed limit and that sign. It would be illegal to go any faster than 65 mph, so technically speaking a person going 65 mph is the fastest on the road. Those going slower than the speed limit are required to move over to the right unless they are passing slower traffic.

WRONG

Safer to go with the flow
A couple of decades ago, Jim Gussler was pulled over while driving 60 mph in a 55-mph zone on Interstate 5 in California.

"Traffic was crazy and whizzing by me," he says. "It was the first time I'd been to California and the first time I'd encountered traffic like that."

He thought the officer was going to issue a ticket for driving 5 mph over the limit.

"Nope," Gussler says. "He politely explained that I was impeding traffic and needed to match the flow of traffic. He also explained that a slower vehicle was more dangerous than a speeding vehicle."

Gussler got off with a warning, but there's at least some research out there that supports that officer's claim.

In 1964, a U.S. government researcher named David Solomon wrote a paper on the subject of speed and crashes. He found that drivers going the median speed of all traffic -- not necessarily the speed limit -- had the lowest risk of collision. He also found that the crash risk increases more sharply at speeds below the average traffic flow than above.

Slow drivers can get ticketed, too - 1 - - MSN Money

EDIT: For those of you that can't get enough of this topic, here's some more fun reading.
Traffic Tickets for Driving Too Slowly | Nolo.com
Notice how theres no mention of speed limit, only "the normal speed of traffic".

[songman]

I thought we had road rage problems in the UK. Going by this thread, US drivers are in a state of permanent meltdown.

Originally Posted by XYZ

Why would you want to drive 60 MPH in 65 PSL zone deliberately, so as to not allow others to pass you? Others have the legal right to drive 65 if they wish. Who do you think you are to impose your will upon others by preventing them from passing you?

That's the definition of being a one man, wannabe traffic cop, AKA a road hog.

I understand the law says what it says. I was giving my opinion about it, ie. it's batty.

If the speed limit is 65, and I'm doing 60, the suggestion that I should accommodate others because my speed is too slow is absurd to me. If they're that desperate about a driver who's doing just 5MPH under the maximum speed, how about they overtake? When did that go out of style?

If I have to actually break the speed limit to accommodate a bunch of nutters coming up behind me, which puts me in breach of the law in itself, in which case I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't, then I give up. I would suggest some US drivers take anger management classes.

[sheepdog 44]

I respectfully disagree that driving 10mph below the speed limit is more unsafe than joining everyone else driving 10mph above the speed limit. My chances of surviving a fatal incident are dramatically reduced. I'd rather have an off chance of getting a ticket based on a handful of "test cases" of the interpretation of the law, then to join the abnormal flow of traffic driving 75mph in a 65mph zone. Doing that is simply advocating that speeding should be legal or is safe. Every argument against 10 under, can be used against 10 over.

Slow down. My philosophy for life also applies to the road.

[cbaber]

Originally Posted by tjts1

WRONG


Slow drivers can get ticketed, too - 1 - - MSN Money

EDIT: For those of you that can't get enough of this topic, here's some more fun reading.
Traffic Tickets for Driving Too Slowly | Nolo.com
Notice how theres no mention of speed limit, only "the normal speed of traffic".

Again, look at the law that you posted. If a minimum speed limit is posted, that is the minimum you can go. Anything above the minimum and below the maximum is legal. Even the article says that. That slower vehicle move right sign assumes that faster vehicles will obey other laws, like the speed limit. Laws have to follow other laws, you know.

The article source you posted is pretty hilarious, considering MSN posts some of the worst reports and news in the main stream media. Trusting MSN to give you advice is about as helpful as trusting you to give us legal advice. For every article you post that says that more speed is safer, I can find one that says just the opposite.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/he...safe.html?_r=0