6 ms·

I'm a dilettante hypermiler, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy-efficient_driving http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy-efficient_driving) which is mostly about

I'm a dilettante hypermiler, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy-efficient_driving http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy-efficient_driving) which is mostly about driving slowly. And wow, it's amazing how mad some people get when you drive the posted speed limit.

jfuhrman 12y ago
Going the speed limit or lower in the passing lane, especially in rush hour is dangerous and probably causes more accidents than just going a bit faster or moving over to the other lanes when someone gets too close. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2016721/Slow-drivers-dangerous-roads-cause-crashes.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2016721/Slow-drivers...
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > Going the speed limit or lower in the passing lane Except when a special designation is made (common on, e.g., two lane highways that have a stretch where a third lane is added to one or the other side expressly for passing), no such thing exists in many US jurisdictions. There are some US jurisdictions where the leftmost lane is by default reserved for passing (or passing and allowing traffic to merge in the other lane), but that is the exception, not the general rule.
  - na85 12y ago
    The left lane is supposed to be a passing lane. If you are one of those people that set the cruise control and doesn't move over when people are behind you, then you are an asshole- jurisdiction or not.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > The left lane is supposed to be a passing lane. No, its not. Except where it is. This varies from place to place -- differences in law represent different decisions about whether or not this is true by different communities. > If you are one of those people that set the cruise control and doesn't move over when people are behind you There is a difference between the left lane being reserved for passing and a convention of slower traffic being expected to move right. The reserved for passing rule is much less common -- either as law or social convention -- than some form of slow-traffic-move-right rule.
- maxerickson 12y ago
  I think this is a weird reply to make to a comment where someone identifies as a "dilettante hypermiler". They are much more likely to be highly aware of how they interact with traffic than they are a dangerous, oblivious obstruction.
- greiskul 12y ago
  He didn't say anything about the passing lane in his comment.
- talmand 12y ago
  If a person is obeying the speed limit in the left lane and a crash ensues, it is not the fault of the person obeying the speed limit. They may be guilty of obstructing traffic in some way depending on the situation and the local laws dictating the proper usage of the left lane, but not the accident. Going slower? Possible, depends on how much slower.
  - mjevans 12y ago
    The left most lane (excluding HOV lanes) is for /passing/. Unless you are passing you should NOT be in this lane. Remaining in this lane, even doing the speed limit, while someone is behind you clearly wanting to go faster (that's their problem, not your's) is failure to yield.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > The left most lane (excluding HOV lanes) is for /passing/. Unless you are passing you should NOT be in this lane. This is not generally the case. http://www.mit.edu/~jfc/right.html http://www.mit.edu/~jfc/right.html
      - na85 12y ago
        The law is not always in touch with reality. Regardless of where you drive, if there are people behind you in the left lane, you should move over to let them pass. Don't piss people off unnecessarily for no reason other than to prove a point. Move to the right.
        dragonwriter 12y ago
        > Regardless of where you drive, if there are people behind you in the left lane, you should move over to let them pass. This is different than "the left lane...is for passing. Unless you are passing you should NOT be in this lane". Under this rule, it would be perfectly acceptable to be in the left lane if you aren't passing and also aren't obstructing faster traffic. However, this rule has traffic management problems similar to those with the left-is-reserved-for-passing-rule (which is probably why its even rarer in law than the left-is-reserved-for-passing-rule, though a couple states do have something like it). The more common legal rule -- and there are good reasons for this rule to be preferred -- is that you have to use the rightmost lane if you are moving slower than the normal speed on the road (independent of the legal limit); this is different than a reserved for passing rule and also different than a move-right-for-faster traffic rule, and is superior to either for traffic management, since with a simple move-right-for-faster-traffic rule, a very small number of drivers wishing to drive at excessive speed could oblige significantly greater congestion in the other lanes with drivers forced to yield to them (and, of course, a strict reserved-for-passing rule has a similar effect). The move-right-if-slower-than-normal rule is pretty much the best rule for traffic management.
- thenmar 12y ago
  Mind linking to the first hand source, or at least something with a better reputation than Daily Mail?
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  According to the Mail, wi-fi (in schools, no less. Just think of the poor tumorous children) causes cancer - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-456534/The-classroom-cancer-risk-wi-fi-internet.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-456534/The-classroom... - so I would take their advice on danger with a pinch of salt, although according to the Mail, that will also give you cancer, so be careful.
talmand 12y ago
For all that is holy, stay out of the left lane. Even if it's clearly marked HOV, you need to make a left turn, or it's a single lane you'll still somehow be a danger to society.
- Houshalter 12y ago
  The speed limit applies to the left lane too.
  - na85 12y ago
    The speed limit is an arbitrary number that has little basis in safety. It is not a magic number under which you are "safe" and over which you are "in danger". Speed limits in North America were lowered to save fuel during the oil shortages in the latter half of the 20th century and subsequently were never raised. Assuming you maintain proper spacing between you and the other cars, driving at 110 km/h is not significantly more dangerous than at 100 or even 90 km/h.
    - mpyne 12y ago
      > Speed limits in North America were lowered to save fuel during the oil shortages in the latter half of the 20th century and subsequently were never raised. I can't speak to Canada, but they were certainly raised afterwards in much of the U.S. The only exceptions I've come across are roads and highways that are frequently congested (e.g. in DC) or local municipalities doing the speed trap thing. But most states raised to at least 65 mph from 55.
    - Houshalter 12y ago
      I didn't even argue for the existence of speed limits, only that it's the law. However lower speeds do decrease the severity of accidents, and as you mention, significantly reduce fuel consumption.
      - lsh123 12y ago
        On the other hand, higher speed == less time on the road == less exposure to a potential accident.
lucb1e 12y ago
Are you going the actual limit, or do you drive on the gauge? Because there is quite a big difference in many cars. Many new ones here seem to indicate 8km/h more than you're going, and with all the people that don't have cruise control this means you're doing 70 when you could be going ~85 before any traffic camera would pick it up. Actually most people drive ~100km/h on the road I have in mind so 80 is annoying to some already, but I try to never tailgate anyone into driving faster. Only when someone does ~72 because they think that's what they are allowed to drive... such a small difference and yet so annoying.

jfuhrman 12y ago

Going the speed limit or lower in the passing lane, especially in rush hour is dangerous and probably causes more accidents than just going a bit faster or moving over to the other lanes when someone gets too close. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2016721/Slow-drivers-dangerous-roads-cause-crashes.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2016721/Slow-drivers...

dragonwriter 12y ago
> Going the speed limit or lower in the passing lane Except when a special designation is made (common on, e.g., two lane highways that have a stretch where a third lane is added to one or the other side expressly for passing), no such thing exists in many US jurisdictions. There are some US jurisdictions where the leftmost lane is by default reserved for passing (or passing and allowing traffic to merge in the other lane), but that is the exception, not the general rule.
- na85 12y ago
  The left lane is supposed to be a passing lane. If you are one of those people that set the cruise control and doesn't move over when people are behind you, then you are an asshole- jurisdiction or not.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > The left lane is supposed to be a passing lane. No, its not. Except where it is. This varies from place to place -- differences in law represent different decisions about whether or not this is true by different communities. > If you are one of those people that set the cruise control and doesn't move over when people are behind you There is a difference between the left lane being reserved for passing and a convention of slower traffic being expected to move right. The reserved for passing rule is much less common -- either as law or social convention -- than some form of slow-traffic-move-right rule.
maxerickson 12y ago
I think this is a weird reply to make to a comment where someone identifies as a "dilettante hypermiler". They are much more likely to be highly aware of how they interact with traffic than they are a dangerous, oblivious obstruction.
greiskul 12y ago
He didn't say anything about the passing lane in his comment.
talmand 12y ago
If a person is obeying the speed limit in the left lane and a crash ensues, it is not the fault of the person obeying the speed limit. They may be guilty of obstructing traffic in some way depending on the situation and the local laws dictating the proper usage of the left lane, but not the accident. Going slower? Possible, depends on how much slower.
- mjevans 12y ago
  The left most lane (excluding HOV lanes) is for /passing/. Unless you are passing you should NOT be in this lane. Remaining in this lane, even doing the speed limit, while someone is behind you clearly wanting to go faster (that's their problem, not your's) is failure to yield.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > The left most lane (excluding HOV lanes) is for /passing/. Unless you are passing you should NOT be in this lane. This is not generally the case. http://www.mit.edu/~jfc/right.html http://www.mit.edu/~jfc/right.html
    - na85 12y ago
      The law is not always in touch with reality. Regardless of where you drive, if there are people behind you in the left lane, you should move over to let them pass. Don't piss people off unnecessarily for no reason other than to prove a point. Move to the right.
      - dragonwriter 12y ago
        > Regardless of where you drive, if there are people behind you in the left lane, you should move over to let them pass. This is different than "the left lane...is for passing. Unless you are passing you should NOT be in this lane". Under this rule, it would be perfectly acceptable to be in the left lane if you aren't passing and also aren't obstructing faster traffic. However, this rule has traffic management problems similar to those with the left-is-reserved-for-passing-rule (which is probably why its even rarer in law than the left-is-reserved-for-passing-rule, though a couple states do have something like it). The more common legal rule -- and there are good reasons for this rule to be preferred -- is that you have to use the rightmost lane if you are moving slower than the normal speed on the road (independent of the legal limit); this is different than a reserved for passing rule and also different than a move-right-for-faster traffic rule, and is superior to either for traffic management, since with a simple move-right-for-faster-traffic rule, a very small number of drivers wishing to drive at excessive speed could oblige significantly greater congestion in the other lanes with drivers forced to yield to them (and, of course, a strict reserved-for-passing rule has a similar effect). The move-right-if-slower-than-normal rule is pretty much the best rule for traffic management.
thenmar 12y ago
Mind linking to the first hand source, or at least something with a better reputation than Daily Mail?
lotsofmangos 12y ago
According to the Mail, wi-fi (in schools, no less. Just think of the poor tumorous children) causes cancer - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-456534/The-classroom-cancer-risk-wi-fi-internet.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-456534/The-classroom... - so I would take their advice on danger with a pinch of salt, although according to the Mail, that will also give you cancer, so be careful.

talmand 12y ago

For all that is holy, stay out of the left lane. Even if it's clearly marked HOV, you need to make a left turn, or it's a single lane you'll still somehow be a danger to society.

Houshalter 12y ago
The speed limit applies to the left lane too.
- na85 12y ago
  The speed limit is an arbitrary number that has little basis in safety. It is not a magic number under which you are "safe" and over which you are "in danger". Speed limits in North America were lowered to save fuel during the oil shortages in the latter half of the 20th century and subsequently were never raised. Assuming you maintain proper spacing between you and the other cars, driving at 110 km/h is not significantly more dangerous than at 100 or even 90 km/h.
  - mpyne 12y ago
    > Speed limits in North America were lowered to save fuel during the oil shortages in the latter half of the 20th century and subsequently were never raised. I can't speak to Canada, but they were certainly raised afterwards in much of the U.S. The only exceptions I've come across are roads and highways that are frequently congested (e.g. in DC) or local municipalities doing the speed trap thing. But most states raised to at least 65 mph from 55.
  - Houshalter 12y ago
    I didn't even argue for the existence of speed limits, only that it's the law. However lower speeds do decrease the severity of accidents, and as you mention, significantly reduce fuel consumption.
    - lsh123 12y ago
      On the other hand, higher speed == less time on the road == less exposure to a potential accident.

lucb1e 12y ago

Are you going the actual limit, or do you drive on the gauge? Because there is quite a big difference in many cars. Many new ones here seem to indicate 8km/h more than you're going, and with all the people that don't have cruise control this means you're doing 70 when you could be going ~85 before any traffic camera would pick it up. Actually most people drive ~100km/h on the road I have in mind so 80 is annoying to some already, but I try to never tailgate anyone into driving faster. Only when someone does ~72 because they think that's what they are allowed to drive... such a small difference and yet so annoying.