3 ms·

By "allows me to maintain a constant speed" I mean that I'm passing cars in the lanes to my right. Thus, I am the free-flowing traffic.

by xapata 10y ago

grzm 10y ago
If faster-moving vehicles are able to get around you on the left and vehicles are not stacking up behind you, okay. If you're impeding traffic because you want to go a constant speed, pull over into a right lane and let the faster-moving traffic pass.
TomMarius 10y ago
You are not the free-flowing traffic if you slow down other vehicles.
- xapata 10y ago
  So if someone wants to drive 95 mph, everyone else in the left lane must merge right to get out of that speeder's way? At what speed does that policy no longer apply? Speeding is like smoking and littering. Sure, many people ignore the signs telling them not to and police tend to ignore violations, but that doesn't mean I must respect the violator. As Paul Graham said, the normal action is perversely abnormal.
  - grzm 10y ago
    Think of this pragmatically. If someone wants to be driving in a manner you think is reckless, do you want to be near them? Do you want to be blocking them? I'd think I'd want to spend as little time in close proximity to them as possible. I'd definitely move right to let them pass.
    - xapata 10y ago
      I think you've misinterpreted my comments. I don't drive on the left out of spite. I drive in the right-most lane that flows at the speed limit. I'll admit that sometimes I'll go 60 if the limit is 55. This means that the lane to my right is generally crowded. Hitting the brakes in order to shift is probably worse than continuing at a constant pace. I'll let the tailgater take the risk of changing lanes.
      - grzm 10y ago
        I think you've misinterpreted my comments. That may be the case. I've tried to make very clear that I'm talking about the case of a multi-lane road that is not congested (not just locally congested). In that case, if you're impeding traffic from being able to pass you on the left, you should move right, at least temporarily, even if it means you need to slow down. I haven't seen you acknowledge this case. I have you repeat phrases like right-most lane that flows at the speed limit, which sounds to me like the following example: Four-lane divided highway (two lanes in each direction). Right lane has traffic exiting and entering and slower moving traffic. You want to drive without needing to adjust speed for these vehicles, so you drive in the left lane. Vehicles attempting to travel faster than you will approach and stack up behind you. Because you want to maintain a constant pace, you won't temporarily move into the right lane to allow this traffic to pass. I'll admit that sometimes I'll go 60 if the limit is 55 As others have pointed out, the flow of traffic is important regardless of posted speeds. The nearest interstate is posted 55 MPH. If you're going 65 MPH, you're moving slow relative to the flow of traffic, with speeds of 75–80 MPH being not unusual. I mention this only because you continue to bring up the posted limit. In my opinion, the flow of traffic is more important from a practical standpoint because that's the environment I'm operating in. This means that the lane to my right is generally crowded. Hitting the brakes in order to shift is probably worse than continuing at a constant pace. I'll let the tailgater take the risk of changing lanes. If you're asking drivers to pass you on the right into generally crowded traffic, this is very dangerous. The distance and time a vehicle needs to pass you is a lot more than the room needed for you to pull into the right lane, and for a shorter period of time. This type of behavior causes knots of congestion on multi-lane roads which increases the likelihood of accidents. Please do not do this. Also, you shouldn't need to "hit the brakes". You may need to apply the brakes, but it shouldn't be abrupt. Paying attention to what's happening behind you as well as in front of you should give you plenty of time to signal and move right in a measured manner. I've tried to be very clear here. If I'm still misinterpreting what you're saying, please do correct me, because that's not my intent. That said, please extend the same courtesy to me and be more explicit about what you would do in the specific cases I've presented.
        xapata 10y ago
  - TomMarius 10y ago
    If someone is driving behind you at 95 mph and you don't merge right as soon as it's safe, you are putting yourself at risk. Also, consider why do they drive that fast - maybe it's an emergency. Sure, in most cases it isn't, but what if this one is?
    - xapata 10y ago
      Indeed, I feel unsafe when someone is tailgating. However, I find their behavior is often unpredictable and they might try to pass on my right at any moment without signaling. It's better not to change lanes abruptly. I do try to avoid the left-most lane because of the incidence of reckless jerks. However, if the other lanes are too slow, I will pass on the left. The thought of an emergency is interesting. I struggle to imagine an emergency that does not warrant police or ambulance, but does warrant taking on the hazard of extreme speeds.
      - grzm 10y ago
        [I]f the other lanes are too slow, I will pass on the left. This sounds like correct behavior, passing on the left. What I am reacting to (as are others, I believe) is a desire to maintain a constant speed in the left lane, impeding faster-moving traffic from passing you on the left. Indeed, I feel unsafe when someone is tailgating. However, I find their behavior is often unpredictable and they might try to pass on my right at any moment without signaling. They will not pass on the right if you move right before they get close enough tailgate.
      - TomMarius 10y ago
        > The thought of an emergency is interesting. I struggle to imagine an emergency that does not warrant police or ambulance, but does warrant taking on the hazard of extreme speeds. I don't know about the US, but in my country (central Europe), it's better (and legal, almost encouraged - police will escort you if you tell them the reason) to break all speed limits in case of transporting an injured person (in some places, the ambulance would be just too slow), a pregnant woman about to give birth, etc. Reaction time of an ambulance is around 2 minutes until they deploy, 15 minutes until they get to you, 15 minutes until they get back to the hospital - meanwhile you can drive the person yourself in 20 minutes.

By "allows me to maintain a constant speed" I mean that I'm passing cars in the lanes to my right. Thus, I am the free-flowing traffic.

by xapata 10y ago

By "allows me to maintain a constant speed" I mean that I'm passing cars in the lanes to my right. Thus, I am the free-flowing traffic.

grzm 10y ago

If faster-moving vehicles are able to get around you on the left and vehicles are not stacking up behind you, okay. If you're impeding traffic because you want to go a constant speed, pull over into a right lane and let the faster-moving traffic pass.

TomMarius 10y ago

You are not the free-flowing traffic if you slow down other vehicles.

xapata 10y ago
So if someone wants to drive 95 mph, everyone else in the left lane must merge right to get out of that speeder's way? At what speed does that policy no longer apply? Speeding is like smoking and littering. Sure, many people ignore the signs telling them not to and police tend to ignore violations, but that doesn't mean I must respect the violator. As Paul Graham said, the normal action is perversely abnormal.
- grzm 10y ago
  Think of this pragmatically. If someone wants to be driving in a manner you think is reckless, do you want to be near them? Do you want to be blocking them? I'd think I'd want to spend as little time in close proximity to them as possible. I'd definitely move right to let them pass.
  - xapata 10y ago
    I think you've misinterpreted my comments. I don't drive on the left out of spite. I drive in the right-most lane that flows at the speed limit. I'll admit that sometimes I'll go 60 if the limit is 55. This means that the lane to my right is generally crowded. Hitting the brakes in order to shift is probably worse than continuing at a constant pace. I'll let the tailgater take the risk of changing lanes.
    - grzm 10y ago
      I think you've misinterpreted my comments. That may be the case. I've tried to make very clear that I'm talking about the case of a multi-lane road that is not congested (not just locally congested). In that case, if you're impeding traffic from being able to pass you on the left, you should move right, at least temporarily, even if it means you need to slow down. I haven't seen you acknowledge this case. I have you repeat phrases like right-most lane that flows at the speed limit, which sounds to me like the following example: Four-lane divided highway (two lanes in each direction). Right lane has traffic exiting and entering and slower moving traffic. You want to drive without needing to adjust speed for these vehicles, so you drive in the left lane. Vehicles attempting to travel faster than you will approach and stack up behind you. Because you want to maintain a constant pace, you won't temporarily move into the right lane to allow this traffic to pass. I'll admit that sometimes I'll go 60 if the limit is 55 As others have pointed out, the flow of traffic is important regardless of posted speeds. The nearest interstate is posted 55 MPH. If you're going 65 MPH, you're moving slow relative to the flow of traffic, with speeds of 75–80 MPH being not unusual. I mention this only because you continue to bring up the posted limit. In my opinion, the flow of traffic is more important from a practical standpoint because that's the environment I'm operating in. This means that the lane to my right is generally crowded. Hitting the brakes in order to shift is probably worse than continuing at a constant pace. I'll let the tailgater take the risk of changing lanes. If you're asking drivers to pass you on the right into generally crowded traffic, this is very dangerous. The distance and time a vehicle needs to pass you is a lot more than the room needed for you to pull into the right lane, and for a shorter period of time. This type of behavior causes knots of congestion on multi-lane roads which increases the likelihood of accidents. Please do not do this. Also, you shouldn't need to "hit the brakes". You may need to apply the brakes, but it shouldn't be abrupt. Paying attention to what's happening behind you as well as in front of you should give you plenty of time to signal and move right in a measured manner. I've tried to be very clear here. If I'm still misinterpreting what you're saying, please do correct me, because that's not my intent. That said, please extend the same courtesy to me and be more explicit about what you would do in the specific cases I've presented.
      - xapata 10y ago
- TomMarius 10y ago
  If someone is driving behind you at 95 mph and you don't merge right as soon as it's safe, you are putting yourself at risk. Also, consider why do they drive that fast - maybe it's an emergency. Sure, in most cases it isn't, but what if this one is?
  - xapata 10y ago
    Indeed, I feel unsafe when someone is tailgating. However, I find their behavior is often unpredictable and they might try to pass on my right at any moment without signaling. It's better not to change lanes abruptly. I do try to avoid the left-most lane because of the incidence of reckless jerks. However, if the other lanes are too slow, I will pass on the left. The thought of an emergency is interesting. I struggle to imagine an emergency that does not warrant police or ambulance, but does warrant taking on the hazard of extreme speeds.
    - grzm 10y ago
      [I]f the other lanes are too slow, I will pass on the left. This sounds like correct behavior, passing on the left. What I am reacting to (as are others, I believe) is a desire to maintain a constant speed in the left lane, impeding faster-moving traffic from passing you on the left. Indeed, I feel unsafe when someone is tailgating. However, I find their behavior is often unpredictable and they might try to pass on my right at any moment without signaling. They will not pass on the right if you move right before they get close enough tailgate.
    - TomMarius 10y ago
      > The thought of an emergency is interesting. I struggle to imagine an emergency that does not warrant police or ambulance, but does warrant taking on the hazard of extreme speeds. I don't know about the US, but in my country (central Europe), it's better (and legal, almost encouraged - police will escort you if you tell them the reason) to break all speed limits in case of transporting an injured person (in some places, the ambulance would be just too slow), a pregnant woman about to give birth, etc. Reaction time of an ambulance is around 2 minutes until they deploy, 15 minutes until they get to you, 15 minutes until they get back to the hospital - meanwhile you can drive the person yourself in 20 minutes.