Drive the speed limit or drive based on surrounding traffic?

[-]

TT-w-TT@reddit

You're talking freeway, so I'm assuming at least three lanes.

Go 65 if you'd like to in the far right. This still allows people to merge on safely and people to pass you safely. Make sure to leave space between you and any vehicle in front of you so people can merge in.

If you're in the middle lane, you need to be going at a similar speed with the flow of traffic. If you're going fast enough to pass the right traffic, you're good. If you ever move into the far left, you need to absolutely be following the flow of traffic to not cause congestion.

[-]

Gusdai@reddit

It's not congestion if people are still going 65, and it doesn't count as impeding traffic. The rule about not impeding traffic was never interpreted in a court as applying to this situation.

If people want to go 80 it's not your problem to deal with, but if there is a vehicle in the middle lane going 68 and you want to go 70 it's perfectly fine to pass them at 70 on the far left lane (in certain states you do have to yield to faster traffic though).

I agree that there is some courtesy there.

[-]

JLF061@reddit

I think the phantom traffic comes from people in the left going 80 and then someone in the middle lane changing lanes into the left lane at 70 and forcing the person going 80 to slam on their brakes. I see it all the time on the highway and don't understand it. To me that makes the person going 70 the bigger idiot.

As someone who goes 55 on certain highways and 80 on others I could never understand that. If I'm changing lanes I either wait till there are no cars in that lane or I put myself in a position to speed up or slow down to the speed of traffic in the lane I'm merging in. Why go into a lane to slow down that traffic even if you are just passing? It's so dangerous and to me indicative of a bad driver. I'm not saying go a speed you are not comfortable with, but change lanes safely.

There have been times I wish the car in front of me would go faster but the people in the left lane are going way too fast for me to change lanes. At that point I just suck it up and stay behind the person. I don't ride them or beep or flash my headlights because I'm choosing to stay there. Could I go into the left lane and cut someone off, yes, but then they could hit me.

I also have a slow car that takes a little bit to speed up so I have to be very careful with my speed when I'm changing lanes. The way people trust others to slow down is crazy.

[-]

Gusdai@reddit

Phantom traffic starts with an initial slowdown, but it is also caused by people not able to brake properly, and slowing down more than they need to, because they're not paying attention and/or not respecting safety distances.

But I obviously completely agree that you shouldn't change lane too close in front of another car going faster. You need to leave them the space to see you and slow down.

[-]

JLF061@reddit

I agree, I wish more people would leave enough space to brake safely and also not brake every 5 seconds. Sometimes you can just ease of the gas to slow down and if you leave space that's usually enough to make sure you don't hit the car in front of you.

[-]

Gusdai@reddit

You save a bunch of fuel doing that too.

[-]

Technical_Annual_563@reddit

Doing the speed limit is not giving anyone an opportunity to road rage that didn’t have the maturity of a teenager to begin with.

[-]

TT-w-TT@reddit

Clearly, I'm not speaking to someone who drives on an interstate daily, much less one heavily congested.

zflooe@reddit

Every mph you increase also increases your chance of dying in a car accident. If one were to happen. Your life is more valuable than getting somewhere a minute or 2 faster.

[-]

throwaway67495725@reddit

To answer this I would need to know if cops are near.

[-]

MostlyDarkMatter@reddit

It's a tough call. There are two choices:

Let other drivers bully you into breaking the law and risk a ticket.
Drive the speed limit and be in danger because of the people whizzing past you who refuse to obey the law.

It's always safe to do so. That's why/how we call it the right of way. At some point, if a clown is standing in the roadway, their life/wellbeing is outweighed by the convenience of some number of people trying to go places.

We don't like to admit this, but we've already run these numbers and arrived at a bunch of different values for a human life.

You/we don't (and shouldn't) pursue safety above all else. We don't wear masks when there's not a global pandemic and no individual reason to wear them. Why? Because it costs something to put on / take off / wear a mask. Nobody on the left will admit that. We ought to mask up, indoors, during the early times of covid. Why? Because the expected benefit was worth the cost.

It is never (completely) "safe" to do anything. You should weigh expected benefits and expected costs, and do everything that has as positive net (expected) benefit minus cost. Don't be stupid. Don't ignore this because you don't like it. Just accept it. Show your work on your decisions, and the decisions you want society to make at the society level. Say: we should wait a total of 1000 seconds before mowing down a clown in the crosswalk, because that's the (expected) breakeven between expected costs to the clown in getting mowed down, and expected costs to the waiters in waiting 1000s. And show the math behind the estimate.

We wear (and mandate) seatbelts. We don't wear (nor mandate) helmets in cars. This is insane. The expected benefit minus cost of (real) helmets in cars is positive. The expected benefit minus cost of seatbelts is positive. But, we shouldn't wear (nor mandate) bicycle helmets because the expected benefit is zero, and the expected cost is > 0, which means the expected net benefit is negative.

[-]

the_lamou@reddit

First, this is the finest example of being pedantic about a misunderstanding of such a basic premise that it seems absurd that anyone would even think it was even theoretically misunderstandable that I may have ever seen in my life.

It's obvious to any human person who understands the English language at even a rudimentary level that when someone says "be safe," they mean "be as safe as it is reasonable to be within the context of the situation." It is equally obvious to any human person who understands English at a even a rudimentary level that "be safe" does not mean "immediately achieve perfect safety and then take any means necessary to maintain that state in perpetuity."

Second:

We don't wear (nor mandate) helmets in cars. This is insane. The expected benefit minus cost of (real) helmets in cars is positive.

This is also a fundamental misunderstanding, though this one is at least understandable given that most people are unfamiliar with the mechanics of helmets in cars.

Wearing a real DOT/FIA approved helmet in a regular car in street driving is one of the most dangerous things you can do. The only common "safety measure" that is more so is installing a full roll cage in a street-driven passenger vehicle. A helmet in a street car without all of the supporting equipment it requires will kill you. It can very easily snap your neck. Race tracks are seriously reconsidering helmet requirements in unprepped cars because it's such a monumentally stupid idea.

The forces acting on your head in a crash without a helmet are intense. The forces with a helmet are an order of magnitude greater. That's why you're supposed to wear a HANS (head and neck support) device with one — to keep your head from popping off. It's what killed Dale Earnhardt, and made HANS devices mandatory in NASCAR.

But that's just the start. You also need a proper five point seatbelt to keep you in place, because a HANS device isn't magic and if you pick up enough momentum it won't save you. You'll also want to remove/disable the airbag, because that counteracting force will also play very poorly with a helmet.

And after all that, you'll be marginal safer than you would in a modern car with soft interior materials, ample airbags, crumple zones, a 3-point seatbelt, and airbags. If that.

[-]

Medical-Effective-30@reddit

be as safe as it is reasonable to be within the context of the situation.

Don't ever do that. Always be safe as is optimal, against every other tradeoff, within the context of the situation.

A helmet in a street car without all of the supporting equipment it requires will kill you.

Yes. Wear all the supporting equipment, too. This is the finest example of being pedantic about a misunderstanding of such a basic premise that it seems absurd that anyone would even think it was even theoretically misunderstandable that I may have ever seen in my life.

It's obvious to any human person who understands the English language at even a rudimentary level that when someone says "wear a helmet" they mean "wear a helmet with all the supporting equipment".

[-]

the_lamou@reddit

So in one comment, you've actually outdone yourself: you managed to go deeper on pointless semantics by not understanding that reasonable is a synonym for optimal in this context, AND managed to completely fail to understand (and reinforce) my point by not having any clue what a normal human being understands about technical protective equipment. Because I promise you if asked to point out a HANS device in a vehicle, the average person would point to the oil cap or airbox or something.

[-]

Medical-Effective-30@reddit

reasonable is a synonym for optimal in this context

reasonable is a synonym for optimal in no context. Reasonable is synonymous with acceptable. It means "good enough". It means "not extreme". Optima are almost always extremes.

Because I promise you if asked to point out a HANS device in a vehicle, the average person would point to the oil cap or airbox or something.

Who cares? That's irrelevant. I concede it, AND it in no way negates any of my position.

Point is, you went pedantic, pretending that "wear helmets in cars" meant "wear helmets in cars with the supporting equipment, like HANSes".

[-]

the_lamou@reddit

I wasn't going to respond, but I have a couple of minutes to kill between meetings, so here we are.

reasonable is a synonym for optimal in no context.

The very first definition of 'reasonable' is 'having sound judgement; fair and sensible.' If you continue to follow the definitional chain, you can go to a definition of 'sensible' which is 'chosen in accordance to wisdom or prudence; likely to be of benefit.' Making the most optimal judgement based on available information is very clearly within the scope of 'wisdom' and 'likely to be of benefit.'

So we can see immediately that one of the issue is you simply don't understand what common words mean.

Another issue is that your argument is that you seem not to understand what 'optimal' means, given that running over pedestrians (especially intentionally) will almost certainly result in a significant number of consequences, regardless of if you have the right of way or not.

Point is, you went pedantic, pretending that "wear helmets in cars" meant "wear helmets in cars with the supporting equipment, like HANSes".

The third issue is that you seem to not be able to read well, as my actual argument was pretty explicitly "'wear helmets in cars' DOES NOT mean 'wear helmets in cars with spring equipment,' which is what makes it so dangerous."

So that's three for three. Normally people would start digging up at this point, but I applaud your commitment to getting to China.

[-]

Medical-Effective-30@reddit

It was clearly implied that I meant "wear helmets reasonably". Even though wearing helmets can't judge, and wearing helmets can't sense.

[-]

Medical-Effective-30@reddit

The very first definition of 'reasonable' is 'having sound judgement; fair and sensible.'

That's for an adjective describing a person, as in "a reasonable person has sound judgement, is fair and sensible". That's not a good definition of reasonable, because you describe many things that aren't people, and have no judgement at all, as reasonable or unreasonable. For example, "that policy is reasonable" does not mean that a policy has sound judgement or any sense at all. It does mean that that policy is fair enough.

Making the most optimal judgement based on available information is very clearly within the scope of 'wisdom' and 'likely to be of benefit.'

Yes. Making the most optimal judgement is not just likely to be of benefit; it's the likeliest to be of greatest net benefit, by definition.

So we can see immediately that one of the issue is you simply don't understand what common words mean.

I understand many more English words much better than you, and probably 99th percentile for quality semantics. I've thought carefully about the meanings I map to words. I've eliminated all conflicts from my semantics, like multiple words that map to a single meaning, or single meanings that map to multiple words. All my definitions are useful; either for thinking, or for communicating. I carefully select definitions in contexts to think better and communicate better.

Another issue is that your argument is that you seem not to understand what 'optimal' means, given that running over pedestrians (especially intentionally) will almost certainly result in a significant number of consequences, regardless of if you have the right of way or not.

I clearly understand what optimal means. That one side of a tradeoff has costs doesn't mean that the optimal solution is to completely avoid it. Nearly every tradeoff worth thinking about has both expected benefits and expected costs on each side. Nearly every tradeoff has an optimal solution that isn't at an extreme.

You might be confused, because I've said, and it's also true that, nearly every dimension's optimum is an extreme, not a middle. Nearly every thing is optimal at -infinity, 0, or +infinity. It's only when you set up tradeoffs between things that the optimum is usually somewhere in between the extremes.

The third issue is that you seem to not be able to read well, as my actual argument was pretty explicitly "'wear helmets in cars' DOES NOT mean 'wear helmets in cars with spring equipment,' which is what makes it so dangerous."

Yes, that's your "argument". And it's mirroring the pedantry you accused me of. Obviously, "wear helmets in cars" DOES mean "wear helmets effectively in cars, which includes spring equipment", which is why it was a bad assumption, and an argument against a straw man position I don't occupy.

[-]

Proof_Evidence_4818@reddit

Maybe but most of the time following the law is what keeps you safe and predictable, hence the reason for the law.

[-]

the_lamou@reddit

hence the reason for the law.

I think there's a lot of naïveté around how and why laws are made in this sub. Some laws are made by or with input from traffic safety professionals in order to keep people safe. Most laws are made by politicians with no experience in traffic safety and a rudimentary understanding of how traffic safety works and for the purpose of either raising revenue or appeasing an important group of voters.

the_lamou@reddit

they would use traffic control methods that work, like narrower roads and traffic calming infrastructure.

So much this. It's virtually impossible to overstate how much more effective proper roadway design is to safety compared to speed limits and enforcement. To say nothing of how much safer society would be if we minimized drivers' exposure to the police.

As a totally unrelated note, you don't happen to be a poster on past-its-prime news aggregator Fark.com, do you?

[-]

Z_Clipped@reddit

LOL, not anymore.

[-]

the_lamou@reddit

Just curious because I remember regularly interacting with a Farker with the same username.

[-]

Medical-Effective-30@reddit

Only most of the time. So don't follow the law. The reason for the law is to assign legal blame when collisions cause harm to people and damage to property, not to keep you safe and predictable.

[-]

Proof_Evidence_4818@reddit

It's really not that deep, we are talking about the speed limit lmao. Go the speed limit dumbass

[-]

Z_Clipped@reddit

Maybe but most of the time following the law is what keeps you safe and predictable, hence the reason for the law.

Oh, my sweet summer child, no.

[-]

_B_e_c_k_@reddit

Most of the time, ya following rules and laws keep you alive.

[-]

Commentator-X@reddit

The law here says go with the the flow of traffic

[-]

Sputnik918@reddit

And which one is that, then?

[-]

Sh4wnSm1th@reddit

Only answer that matters. You come to learn whether you're being overcautious or not based on what you're seeing. There is no one size fits all formula to being safe. As I stated in another thread, sometimes the safest course of action is the illegal action. Sometimes the most dangerous thing one can do is follow the law. My dad would tell me when I was learning, he never paid attention to the speedometer, only to what others were doing and copying them enough to stay safe. For me learning, I thought that was bone headed and illegal. I've been driving now since 2014, I'm now the same as him. I ignore what the speedometer says in relation to the speed limit. I'd rather get a ticket, than a body bag or casket. Some here on this reddit like to say, at least you're in the right. But I'd rather have all my body working without assistance and be wrong, than to be right, but dealing with permanent damage because someone else's ego said I'm wrong.

[-]

Medical-Effective-30@reddit

There is no one size fits all formula to being safe.

Yes, there absolutely is.

[-]

Sh4wnSm1th@reddit

Not really. While I'm driving, I have an idea of how to drive, but driving consciously requires one to adapt to changing situations. You may have to do something one way, that you normally don't do, as you want to stay safe and help others to be able to have a safe option. The people that adhere dogmatically to the law are just as dangerous & as deadly as the person saying I'm doing 100 no matter what. Both are extremes of the same coin. Me, I'm the side of the coin. Employing enough follow the law to avoid a situation, and enough fuck the law to stay safe. The law only helps if everyone is following it to a "T".

[-]

Medical-Effective-30@reddit

driving consciously requires one to adapt to changing situations

driving unconsciously also requires one to adapt to changing situations. what's your point?

You may have to do something one way, that you normally don't do, as you want to stay safe and help others to be able to have a safe option.

Only if you don't normally do the right thing. If you normally do the right thing, you always do "something" (drive) the same way, the right way, the best way.

The people that adhere dogmatically to the law are just as dangerous & as deadly as the person saying I'm doing 100 no matter what.

Yes. That doesn't mean that there isn't a right way. It just means that the right way isn't adhering to the law nor doing 100 no matter what...

Both are extremes of the same coin.

No. They are not opposites. They aren't extremes "of the same coin".

Me, I'm the side of the coin.

No, you're not. There is no coin. The middle ground fallacy is strong in you, but this isn't even that. There is no middle ground between "adhering dogmatically to the law" and "doing 100 no matter what". Those aren't opposite poles of the same dimension!

The law only helps if everyone is following it to a "T".

No. The law is for assigning blame when people collide and damage property and harm bodies. It's still quite useful for that even when noone is following it to a T.

The one size fits all formula for driving is:

yield to the right of way when you don't have it
execute the right of way when you do have it, and never yield to those who don't have it

If you "suddenly see" stopped cars in front of you and can barely slow down in time at 30 mph, you're a fool and oblivious.

Given, speed limits are designed assuming the average driver is an oblivious fool. Yes, it's very dangerous to drive 80mph with your nose glued to your phone.

[-]

ChangingMonkfish@reddit

Yeah I mean the “suddenly see” wasn’t the point, I was just trying to illustrate the difference in stopping distances when braking at the same point (so braking at the same point at 31mph as at 30mph results in a bigger increase to stopping distance than you might think - you’re not going at 1mph at the point you would have stopped, you’re going at 8mph. Likewise with 70 and 80 - if you’re 10mph faster at the braking point, you’re almost 50mph faster at what would have been the stopping point.

A very small difference in speed can result in a much bigger difference in stopping distance, and that difference (i.e. the amount stopping distance increases for additional speed) goes up more the faster you go, it’s not a linear increase. And that’s what can make the difference between having a massive accident and not having an accident at all.

If it’s set at 65mph, someone has determined that’s the safe speed for the majority of people. Driver who think they know better don’t tend to actually know anything about it.

Also for what it’s worth, I know this from doing a speed awareness course after being caught speeding myself - it’s not like I’m just some jobsworth who’s a stickler for the rules, but the information on stopping distances was extremely eye opening.

[-]

BanjosAndBoredom@reddit

Yeah but it kind of is the point... If you're looking out your windshield at the road in front of you, the difference in stopping distance between 65 and 80 aren't going to matter that much. Keep enough following distance so you can see more than the bumper in front of you, and when you see brake lights ahead, slow down before you have to.

Yes of course the state sponsored speeder reeducation is going to feed you a bunch of stuff about how innately unsafe it is to drive 1mph over the speed limit.

[-]

If the flow of traffic exceeds the speed limit, and you speed to keep up, that won't save you from a ticket. They're unlikely to single you out, unless you're also engaged in some other violation like following too closely.

Remember that speed limits are set for a reason; ignore what Reddit says; most people don't know what they're talking about. Speeding is aggressive driving, and a major contributor to serious accident outcomes.

Don't speed. It's that simple.

[-]

ChuckFinley50@reddit

Do whatever you’re comfortable with, but just stay in the right lanes if you want to go 65

[-]

DonJonald@reddit

High density - surrounding traffic, low density - limit.

[-]

dbolburgers@reddit

Depends. If its pouring hard and inches of water, I'm likely going 40-45mph lol. Once my warrants are clear, I'm driving speed limit on the far right lane regardless how fast the person in front is going.

[-]

the_lamou@reddit

If it's an even split, or there are more people going 65 than 80, or you're on a multilane highway and slower traffic is keeping left as they should be (in the US, obviously different in countries where they drive on the wrong side,) then you're exactly right.

If everyone around you is going 80 and you're driving 65 in the left lane forcing people to either slow down or pass you on the right, then no. In that case, the risk of accident is entirely on the person going slower.

Legal responsibility is not the same as contribution to risk. The former is an artificial social construct we've created to make adjudicating accidents easy and predictable. It's oversimplified and explicitly excludes any but the most common cases. The later is complex, context-dependent, and would make things like insurance and moving violations practically impossible.

A good example of the difference is any version of the common insurance scam where someone forces you to hit them. The scam works specifically because there's a difference between legal responsibility (who pays for the accident) and contribution to risk. If someone darts in front of you and slams on their brakes forcing a rear-end collision (or slows down suddenly without giving you ample time to adjust following distance, then slams on their brakes,) you generally have full legal responsibility because you rear-ended them. But obviously you didn't cause the accident or contribute to it in any way.

[-]

Gusdai@reddit

There are many scenarios where an accident happens after someone is passing at 65 in the left lane while other people go 80. In all of them the blame is 100% on someone else, and I don't just mean legally. Someone can't slow down in time and hit the car? 100% their fault. Someone changes lane and hits another vehicle? 100% their fault for not changing lane correctly. You're never causing an accident solely by going 65 on a 65; someone else is. You're not responsible for making sure other people don't even have an occasion to do something stupid.

And the rules aren't just a simplification to make adjudicating accidents easier. They are actually a system that if respected pretty much guarantees that there won't be any accident. So people breaking the rules (including not paying attention when changing lane or not respecting safety distances) do take actual responsibility if that results in accidents.

Your examples are wrong in that regard: someone darting in front of you and slamming on the brakes are legally responsible in an accident. There is no discrepancy between legal responsibility and actual responsibility there. The issue is about being able to demonstrate what happened to a judge. If you've got a dashcam they're out of luck with their scam.

[-]

the_lamou@reddit

In all of them the blame is 100% on someone else, and I don't just mean legally.

No, dude, I'm sorry, but it just isn't. I know amateur road rangers think that anyone who is remotely going faster than them is a menace to society, but the actual experts disagree.

They are actually a system that if respected pretty much guarantees that there won't be any accident.

No, they aren't. Speed limits are not set by rigorous engineering and scientific analysis. They're set by politicians to accomplish political goals. Hence why some towns have a reputation as speed traps where they set the speed limit suddenly and artificially lower to raise revenue — a road that was safe at 45mph for miles doesn't just suddenly become dangerous at any speed over 30 the minute it enters city limits. Legislation is not, in general, created by subject matter experts. And this gets true the more local legislation gets.

someone darting in front of you and slamming on the brakes are legally responsible in an accident.

No, they aren't. In most states (at least no-fault ones), absent hard evidence of fraud, the person who rear-ended someone holds 100% of responsibility. Always, and without any easy exceptions. Even with a dashcam, absent egregious behavior and (again) hard evidence of fraud, the best you can hope for is that the other person might also get a ticket for something minor like "unsafe passing". But you are still legally responsible for the accident and your insurance is on the hook for paying damages. This is what the law says (again, in most jurisdictions in the US). There's no magical "but I'm definitely a good driver, officer, it was that other guy's fault look at my dashcam" exception in most US driving codes.

Given that most people on this subreddit talk about driving laws like there's one law in the United States without realizing that it's different in every single state, I suspect that you and others have absolutely no idea what the actual laws are and are basing your arguments entirely on deeply held personal beliefs and things you imagine to be in the code.

[-]

Gusdai@reddit

I know amateur road rangers think that anyone who is remotely going faster than them is a menace to society,

That wasn't my point. My point was that if there is an accident, something else happened than simply someone going 65 and someone going 80. Someone forgot to brake, or someone made a dangerous lane change.

No, they aren't. Speed limits are not set by rigorous engineering and scientific analysis.

I agree with that, but see above: I wasn't talking about speed limits. Speed is not causing the potential accident you're talking about.

Even with a dashcam, absent egregious behavior and (again) hard evidence of fraud, the best you can hope for is that the other person might also get a ticket for something minor like "unsafe passing".

But you were specifically talking about fraud and egregious behavior. Fraud is illegal, and the issue is not the discrepancy with the law, it's finding the proof. Give another example if you want to make your point.

I suspect that you and others have absolutely no idea what the actual laws are and are basing your arguments entirely on deeply held personal beliefs and things you imagine to be in the code.

And I know you just misunderstood my points.

[-]

the_lamou@reddit

That wasn't my point. My point was that if there is an accident, something else happened than simply someone going 65 and someone going 80. Someone forgot to brake, or someone made a dangerous lane change.

Ok, fine, sure, I guess. But that misses my point that roadway safety is a systems problem, not an individual problem. We can go back and forth until we're blue in the face about who's fault any specific accident was, but overall accidents are a byproduct of complex systems of driver interaction with other drivers, the roadway, and their cars.

One of the biggest challenges of solving systemic problem, aside from the generalized complexity of most modern systems and the number of factors at play, is being able to accept the base state of the individual components in the system as they are rather than as you want them to be. And the biggest impact towards solving systemic problems is found in applying leverage to the most dynamic (changeable or easy to change, in this context) factor.

People will make irrational and reckless decisions regardless of any constraints we put on the system. We can try to limit these decisions, but we can't completely eradicate them because people are people. And certain things can increase the likelihood of these decisions, because again, people are people.

One of the biggest contributors to systemic risk for road safety is people who drive slower than the prevailing speed of traffic, and especially people who drive slow in the wrong lane. Because one of the foundational truths about the system is that some number of speeders will always try to pass slower cars, and when the passing lane is blocked, the most reckless of these will attempt to pass incorrectly. This creates a risk that was not present before -- if a slow-moving car were not occupying the passing lane, fast drivers would not attempt to pass on the right. The risk is entirely created by the slower driver. It would not exist without the slow driver blocking the safer option.

And simultaneously, drivers who follow the speed limit are also the most likely ones to have their behavior changed. They have demonstrated risk aversion and propensity to conform by refusing to exceed the speed limit, therefore enforcement of left lane rules is likely to have a high impact on their driving behavior. Meanwhile, reckless speeders who perform risky maneuvers are highly resistant to change -- they have already demonstrated a disregard for consequences so layering additional consequences on top is unlikely to cause them to become good drivers.

Systemically, the best way to reduce accident risk is to eliminate left lane camping and driving significantly slower than prevailing traffic. Ergo, they are the problem.

Personally, I just set my auto cruise to slightly above what cars around me are driving at, get in a lane, and chill out until I get where I'm going.

And I know you just misunderstood my points.

That's fair, and in light of this exchange, I sincerely apologize about my tone. It was uncalled for, and you didn't deserve it.

[-]

Gusdai@reddit

I'm just going to cherry-pick here but:

One of the biggest contributors to systemic risk for road safety is people who drive slower than the prevailing speed of traffic,

A larger contributor to systemic risk is people who don't care about passing correctly. They're literally causing the accidents. Systematically, the best way to reduce risk is to watch where you're going and pass correctly. Which incidentally, and unlike going 80 when other people go 80 in a 65, is a formal rule.

Also if you want to talk about systemic risk, people thinking it's ok to go 80 just because other people go 80, even though it will create dangerous situations when (and not if) someone goes 65 is kind of a textbook example... I'm not against people going 80 (and I might very well be one of these people, it's irrelevant here), I'm just saying that everyone's responsibility is to not cause accidents. Not to try and ensure that other people won't have even the opportunity to do something stupid, and even if it means you're sacrificing your right to go 65 in a 65 zone.

The risk is entirely created by the slower driver. It would not exist without the slow driver blocking the safer option.

The risk is created because someone is not able to react to a simple situation.

Personally, I just set my auto cruise to slightly above what cars around me are driving at,

For someone talking about systemic behavior, this is a very strange attitude. What would happen if everyone did the same? "I'm going to go faster than other people unless they're going faster than X" (X being a different value for everyone) is certainly generative of systemic risk...

[-]

the_lamou@reddit

A larger contributor to systemic risk is people who don't care about passing correctly.

Which, as I pointed out, doesn't matter. You can't fix stupid, you just acknowledge it and find ways to work around it. Some people say this is unfair, and if you want to have a commiseration session than sure, it's unfair. But from a "getting as many people home safely as possible as often as possible" perspective, fair doesn't matter. It's easier for us, and leaves us all with a safer drive. Which is what we want.

What would happen if everyone did the same? "I'm going to go faster than other people unless they're going faster than X" (X being a different value for everyone) is certainly generative of systemic risk...

That's not how that works. Auto cruise will lock on to whatever car is in front of you and match their speed while maintaining a safe distance. I set it a little high (usually about 5MPH) above prevailing speeds so that if the car in front of me speeds up I don't just sit there annoying drivers behind me. And I will typically stick to either one of the middle lanes, though that depends on how the lanes are following and stick to it.

The net result is that I drive exactly at the speed of traffic maintaining a safe and (relatively) consistent distance from the person in front of me.

What would happen if everyone else did the same? We'd all get where we're going faster, wasting less energy, and with fewer accidents. I wish everyone did that. As it stands, every time I get on the highway, I see my speed constantly yo-yoing between give or take 15 under the limit to 15 over the limit. Your question wasn't a "gotcha," it's literally the solution to making roads better.

[-]

TheTightEnd@reddit

The person going 65 dumps a disproportionate amount of the responsibility onto everyone else if the predominant speed is 80. This differential in speed increases risk which can be mitigated by going 80.

[-]

Gusdai@reddit

Yes: everybody is responsible for slowing down when traffic in front of them is going 65. Everybody is responsible for not trying to pass on the shoulder. Everybody is responsible for not changing lane while someone who slowed down less is passing them. It doesn't matter if you're the only one going 80 or there are 30 other people behind you going 80, you are still 100% responsible for not doing something stupid in this case, and asking you not to do something stupid is not too much to ask.

The question is not that complicated: if there are three vehicles in each of the three lanes going 65 or less in front of you, and you're going 80, they will have to go faster or you will have to go slower or there will be a collision. Who's responsible for adjusting their speed?

The answer is, people going 80 have to slow down. And the people going 65 or less can (and are encouraged to) be nice and go slightly faster to be less of an annoyance to other people. And of course pull back right if not passing.

[-]

TheTightEnd@reddit

Your scenario is very different from the original one. The original scenario involves a general flow of traffic at 80 mph, and a speed limit is 65, what should that single driver do? The general answer is that the person should go 80 mph with the flow of traffic to not disproportionately impede and impose on others.

In your scenario, if people are in all three lanes going 65, the person doing so in the left lane is in the wrong. When the 65 mph person sees the 80 mph person coming up behind, that person should exit the lane, or adjust speed to speed up or slow down to exit the lane, allowing the 80 mph driver to pass. If the driver fails to do that, then the 80 mph driver should slow down to prevent the collision.

[-]

Gusdai@reddit

My scenario is a general flow going 80 on three lanes, and the two lanes on the right being occupied by vehicles going under 65. That's in line with the original one. If you don't have the two vehicles in the two lanes, then the answer is even more obviously that you can go 65 (staying in the far right lane).

The question is (in the scenario where the two lanes are occupied): can you pass on the left at 65. And yes you can. Of course you can't pull at 65 just in front of someone going 80, but provided you leave them enough space to slow down, it's ok, unless you're in one of those states where you need to yield to faster vehicles.

The person going slower also needs to not be on their phone and to have functioning brakes. But nobody said going 65 exempted anyone from following other laws.

The person going 65 can very well be in the left lane of they are passing someone. And if people weave through traffic because of the slowdown caused by someone passing at 65 in the left lane, they are the dangerous ones.

[-]

Z_Clipped@reddit

The person going 65 can very well be in the left lane of they are passing someone.

If "everyone else is going 80", who are they passing, and why do they need to be in the far left lane to do it? Why do people always insist on completely changing the parameters of the discussion just so they can say the self-justifying nonsense they want to say?

Your objection basically ignores the original question, and boils down to "I can drive like I want, and everyone else is responsible for dealing with me".

The question was whether it's safer to do what you're doing, or to go with the flow of traffic.

[-]

Gusdai@reddit

If "everyone else is going 80", who are they passing, and why do they need to be in the far left lane to do it?

If there is nobody in the middle lane you can pass going 65, then there isn't a question indeed.

Your objection basically ignores the original question

The original question from OP was a wider "what speed should we go. It is pretty relevant to say that you can drive 65 if you want to, provided you respect all the other rules, including pulling back as far right as you can unless passing. It's also relevant to say that if a vehicle is going 60 in the middle lane for whatever reason, you can do your 65 in the left lane even if it means other people will need to slow down as a result.

and boils down to "I can drive like I want, and everyone else is responsible for dealing with me".

No it's not. You still have to respect the rules of the road.

[-]

Z_Clipped@reddit

The original question from OP was a wider "what speed should we go.

No, it doesn't. It assumes a situation (literally the most common situation on the road drivers are presented with) and asks about the response to that specific situation. "How fast should we go in general" is just the axe YOU personally want to grind, and you're derailing the discussion to do it.

[-]

Gusdai@reddit

I meant what speed should we go based on OP's assumptions, by opposition to "what speed is the safest"

I was answering OP's question. I thought it was pretty clear I was talking about the situation where people go 80 where the speed limit is 65. I didn't even say you should go 65, and that people shouldn't go 80. I said it's perfectly fine to go 65 if you want to.

[-]

SunnnyTV@reddit

If you’re going 65 and the left lane is going 80 if you don’t have enough space to pass without making anybody in the left break you shouldn’t have passed

[-]

Gusdai@reddit

If you're passing you can be in the left lane.

What's the difference? You're creating an opportunity for bad people to make bad decisions.

[-]

SunnnyTV@reddit

Sexually harassing or assaulting someone is magnitudes worse than being and inconsiderate driver and I don’t think that really needs to be explained

[-]

Gusdai@reddit

We obviously agree on that, but that doesn't change the idea that the woman has no responsibility because she's not the one deciding on harassing other people. If anything the fact that harassment is more serious means it's more important to have zero responsibility in it.

The woman has zero responsibility in this serious issue, the 65 driver has zero responsibility in this less serious issue.

[-]

SunnnyTV@reddit

The woman has no responsibility because she should be able to dress and present herself as she pleases. We just disagree on whether or not people should be getting into the left to pass at slower speeds. I want to specify that if there 2+ cars of space between you and fast drivers or if you’ve been in the lane already and someone starts tailing you it wouldn’t be your responsibility to remove yourself (until it’s safe to pass) but if you impact a line of traffic and people need to break hard to avoid a crash with you that’s where the issue is. Tailgaters are unrealistic in their expectations and I’m not defending them at all or saying to let people bully you on the road. Just simply that there are times to make a pass at the speed limit but more often than not on a crowded road it’s just not worth the danger it invites for the slower driver and everybody else on the road.

[-]

Gusdai@reddit

But people don't need to brake hard if you're going 65, unless you're pulling over just in front of them. They're going barely 15 above your speed on a road with a lot of visibility, where they should expect vehicles to go 65 (or even slower). If they're braking hard, it means they didn't anticipate, which is a serious mistake when driving, and that's on them, not on you.

I mean the situation has been clearly defined (for once), so let's stick to it.

You won't settle this finally (not here, you couldn't solve anything on this site, LOL) because people do not get that the "keep up with the flow of ttraffic" thing was meant for WITHIN the speed limit. A pack of people going eighty is much less safe that 65. The first comment I see is "here's my argument against that" followed by some asshole writing "And we're done" --not a person I would have much faith in, LOL

And they will die on this hill, they will never even entertain the idea that they misinterpreted this, they will send a seventy page document that supposedly backs up their claim (and it never does, nor will they point out where the information is located because they are bankling on people not reading it), they will cry and moan and get nasty about it, but the fact is that they want to mold the theory to how they wish to drive. I guarantee at least one very angry guy will stalk my account for days because I wrote this. (Probably the asshole who wrote that "we're done" comment LOL)

If you can't tell we've all see this fight before, and it is hilarious.

This will never be settled on Reddit.

If you are farming for karma, OP, then great post, because nobody can leave this topic alone. (And see you soon, reddit stalker!)

[-]

mochmeal2@reddit

I think your mixing up practical and legal views on this.

I say "keep up with the flow of traffic" not because that is a legally or academicly supported. I say it because years of observation have shown me that my close calls with accidents are when the road is a mess because half of the traffic is going 80 and the other other half is locked to 65. Especially when someone doing 65 is self righteously parked in the left lane exclaiming online that they are going the speed limit.

[-]

Francesca_N_Furter@reddit

See, I've heard all the arguments....you come back with I'm mixing stuff up? I've heard this, it's not based on reality....and it's not practicality you are arguing for, but you like to speed.

I really honestly have more respect for people who just admit they like to drive faster (and faster than everyone else, there's a huge ME FIRST element to this all, LOL)

Calling this practical is trying to polish a turd.

It's illegal, it's illegal for a reason, people don't want to follow the law (this may shock you, but most people see a lot of bullshit speed limits and DEAL WITH IT. LOL And you all they use a wide variety of arguments but you ALL of you latch on to the flow of traffic thing. WE'VE HEARD IT, and I cannot explain any clearer how I feel about that hilarious misinterpretation.

But thanks for another speeding scenario. I mean...nobody else ever thought of that before. \s

[-]

JLF061@reddit

When I first started driving I used to go the speed limit but I also stayed in the very right lane and never went close to the left lane because I knew I didn't want to drive at that speed and I wasn't confident enough in my skill. At some point I realized speed isn't inherently bad or good. I had a left lane exit and I had to realize that going the speed of traffic was much safer than trying to go the speed limit.

I don't always like speeding and there are some highways where I'll go right lane and others I will go left lane depending on the time of day. The most aggravating thing is when someone comes in front of me right or left lane and is driving much slower than me. At that point you could've just gone behind me or waited. Now I have to slam on my brakes or merge into another lane to get away from you. How is that safer?

I don't think the issue is speed (slow or fast), the issue is people not thinking when they merge. They do so slowly or without checking blind spots or going too fast and having to slam on their brakes. If people stuck to whatever speed the traffic is going it would be safer both slow and fast. Obviously if someone is going 100 mph or 45 in a 55 don't do that. Everything is situational.

[-]

Carrisonfire@reddit

it's illegal for a reason.

Depend if you mean speeding in general or going 80 on a divided highway. Or +5-10 in general. Speed limits haven't been updates since the 60s, cats have gotten much better at stopping and handling at high speed since then. Want to stop people defaulting to +10? Update the limits for modern cars.

[-]

Francesca_N_Furter@reddit

Are you quoting yourself? LOL

And you meant UPDATED, not updates. But I agree, change the laws or stop whining.

[-]

Carrisonfire@reddit

Was quoting 1 bit from you but formatting on mobile sucks. And yeh fat thumbs.

It's illegal, it's illegal for a reason

True, but probably not for the reason you think.

But I know, you've seen all the arguments about why speed limits don't actually improve safety, and you've dismissed them out of hand already, so this will surely be a very productive "discussion".

DEAL WITH IT

No, YOU deal with it. Or just pound your little fists on your steering wheel in anger when people don't conform as hard as you. Your call.

[-]

Francesca_N_Furter@reddit

You guys with the issues are the ones pounding your fists. Most people I know are chilled out driving...and they don't go on reddit repeating the same lame arguments.

Enjoy your tickets. LOL

[-]

Z_Clipped@reddit

they don't go on reddit repeating the same lame arguments.

Irony: Level 10

[-]

Z_Clipped@reddit

A pack of people going eighty is much less safe that 65.

On a well-maintained three-wide freeway with huge American-sized lanes and modern cars? Not really.

[-]

Francesca_N_Furter@reddit

Yeah --because the roads are so great here.....LOL

[-]

Orionsbelt1957@reddit

The 2nd Amendment comma defense meets driving

[-]

Whatever92592@reddit

Most will go with the flow of traffic. Be aware though, going with the flow of traffic is not a valid defense if you receive a citation.

[-]

atticus-fetch@reddit

I do what I'm comfortable doing at the time. I've done both but if drivers are zipping by me I move as far to the right as I need to.

Mammoth_Pack_6442@reddit

Keep right except to pass and it doesn't matter if you're driving the speed limit when traffic is going 80. Driving at speed of traffic is the best and safest unless you're a low skill driver. If that's the case drive slower but please keep right. I live in CA and the basic rule is the speed limit is however fast traffic is flowing, not the posted signs.

[-]

One_Mail51@reddit

Yes speeding is illegal but isn’t impeding traffic also illegal. I personally add about 5-10 mph for every lane as I get farther left, and if I’m on a country road, I add about 20mph.

[-]

KennyWuKanYuen@reddit

‘Spirit of the law’ over ‘letter of the law’ in this case.

‘Letter of the law’ is best reserved for situations where you need technicalities to get out of.

[-]

ThePocketPanda13@reddit

If you feel like you're gonna get hit by going the speed limit, then go with traffic.

[-]

tickyul@reddit

I stay in the slow-lane and generally go the speed-limit.

[-]

mochmeal2@reddit

I will drive 80 or whatever the speed of traffic is.

a smart rule is to not be the fastest car on the road.

Lane usage, clear signaling, leaving space in front and to the sides, and situational awareness are all superior factors when it comes to safety. You can follow the number on the sign and fail at all those other things and it's 10x worse than 95 in a 70.

It's harder to enforce that other stuff because you have to observe an individual longer than the time it takes to point the laser doohicky, and the whole argument becomes subjective in a courtroom. With laser doohickey, it's numbers and binary thinking.

I say all that as one who generally doesn't speed. I just don't mind if someone wants to go faster provided they aren't being belligerent about it.

[-]

Skeptix_907@reddit

This is the dumbest thing I've seen on Reddit in a long while, and that's saying something.

Absolute speed limits aren't a thing because cops conspired with engineers to make it easy to write tickets. They exist because smart engineers worked with traffic safety experts to analyze what the maximum safety speed is on a road based on curvature, sight lines, etc, with a bit of safety factor built in.

Lane usage, clear signaling, leaving space in front and to the sides, and situational awareness are all superior factors when it comes to safety.

If you engineer roads to depend on drivers doing the right thing 100% of the time, your design will fail 100% of the time. I don't know the last time you drove, but in my experience it's closer to a coin flip whether someone signals, uses lanes correctly, and leaves enough space between them and the car in front of them.

We wouldn't need absolute speed limits if humans drove perfectly. They don't, so we need them.

[-]

RedditUserSnap@reddit

I think the fact that people want to use random lanes and pass on all sides ends up being the largest justification for speed limits currently.

Most people have a really good chance of getting away with breaking the rules a little bit (being a pig) because it’s normal behavior and not really enforced to that degree so its almost rewarded (getting fed), but breaking the rules a lot (being a hog) is more likely to get you caught (slaughtered).

Yeah, I get that you THINK that's how the world works, but it isn't, especially in the context of traffic accidents and violations.

People who drive crazy fast (like 50-100 over the limit) almost never get caught. Cops just don't advertise how ineffective they are at stopping this behavior. Most tickets are written to people doing 10-15 over the limit.

People driving this way also cause very few accidents. OTOH, distracted driving caused by cellphones is responsible for over 3000 deaths and 300.000 injuries per year. But that's a lot harder for people to see happening and to enforce from patrol cars, so most cops and municipalities still pretend it can be solved with signage and awareness-raising, while continuing to spend huge amounts of money on dangerous-but-lucrative speed enforcement.

tl;dr- If your "wise" notion about the world fits on a bumper sticker and sounds folksy, it's probably mostly wrong.

[-]

External-Bluejay8469@reddit

You’ve edited your comment multiple times. Just think of how much time you’ve wasted trying to make a point to someone on reddit that doesn’t care and is taking a shit while replying to you. Whats the wikipediable hip pocket philosophy guide say about that?

[-]

Z_Clipped@reddit

You’ve edited your comment multiple times.

Wow, it's the rarely-seen "proofreading burn".
I noticed and corrected a spelling error. You really got me, I guess.

Sorry, I know it's uncomfortable to have an offhand comment you made get totally dismantled, but if it's no big thing, you probably shouldn't give yourself a hemorrhoid defending it.

And remember to wash your hands and your phone afterward.

[-]

Z_Clipped@reddit

It’s clearly meant to be taken as a little bit of greed is typically rewarded because you probably wont get caught, but if you go nuts you’ll probably be caught.

AKA "Anyone who drives faster than me is crazy (and will get what's coming to them), and anyone who drives slower than me is an idiot".

Same unselfconscious bullshit.

[-]

External-Bluejay8469@reddit

I think you’re taking this personally for some reason and completely missing the point. It’s about the enforcement threshold. It doesn’t matter if you or I are “okay” with going a certain speed and have some cognitive dissonance over “i am NOT okay with that OTHER person speeding”. It has to do with the cop seeing a sea of drivers all doing about the same speed so they aren’t going to bother to pull any of them over because the low level speeding is now normalized. They’re more likely to notice the outlier going significantly faster and go after them.

[-]

Z_Clipped@reddit

I think you’re taking this personally

No, I'm just challenging your worldview. I don't expect it to be comfortable for you, but it's nothing personal for me.

It has to do with the cop seeing a sea of drivers all doing about the same speed so they aren’t going to bother to pull any of them over because the low level speeding is now normalized.

That's not really how police operate. They go for the easiest collars, not the fastest drivers. They actually routinely ignore speeders that they think would be too much work to catch. Sport bikes for example, can speed at 100+mph with complete impunity without even being chased in a lot of urban areas.

And if nobody stood out from that sea of drivers doing 8mph over the limit, they would just adjust their enforcement standards and keep pulling people over and ticketing them. Because that's what cops are for- writing tickets, not keeping people safe.

As long as the speed is within your abilities and the abilities of your vehicle given the road, weather, and traffic conditions, it is better to go the prevailing speed of traffic.

[-]

Medical-Effective-30@reddit

u/Proof_Evidence_4818

Go a minimum of 4 over the speed limit in the rightmost lane dumbass. Go a minimum of 5mph more than that, and only be passing people, whenever you go into lefter lanes. Then GTFO to the right again when you complete the pass.

[-]

Dividend_Dude@reddit

I tend to drive 11 to 12 above on my commute. (On a 70mph limit)

[-]

Opening_Attitude6330@reddit

Speed limit + 5 , cruise control right lane.

[-]

DingleberryBlaster69@reddit

Bingo. You all wanna go 90 and duke it out in the left lanes, go right ahead. I’m not speeding up because y’all are impatient as fuck or didn’t leave on time. Not my problem.

Im not afraid to go 85. trust me. What i dont want is a nasty 30 over ticket and I drive a sports car so more likely cops gonna nail me over you in the Forester or Camry. Even if we both going the same speed

so Ill tend to stay middle lane and let a faster guy go left to hopefully pull some heat off

[-]

Focustazn@reddit

My take (based on both my parents being highway engineers for Caltrans for 30+ years) is that speed limits are based on three primary factors

Speed survey/statistical data: Either they lay out wires on roads to track average speed over a period to determine Safe speed or they use historical data in the area for that type of road
Engineering code: Roads are designed for safe travel at a certain speed. This is tricky to rely on because much of the US’s highway system was built a century ago, which means retrofitting for higher speeds has only been done in part. This is half the reason why we can’t have nice things like German autobahns (the other half being incompetence being too accepted in US drivers license requirements)
Politics. Enviro-freaks want everyone to stay at 65 for emissions reasons. Soccer mom interest groups want everyone to stay at 65 because “speed kills”. Police departments enjoy speeding ticket revenue. Whatever the groups involved, speed limits are as a matter of fact artificially lowered (often significantly) below the TRUE safe speed threshold for the road design and traffic volume.

——

Generally speaking, most highways in California (I will avoid speaking to other states, my parents primary area of expertise is in CA) are totally safe for travel at 85MPH for passenger cars, including in curves. The problem comes with the BIG RIGS that are severely underbraked (and without a properly funded inspection apparatus to make sure all trucks are DOT compliant). If everyone goes 85, and the big rigs are only really safe at 70 or so (MAX, and probably with an empty trailer), the speed differential between passenger cars and trucks becomes a problem (especially during lane changes, merges, and junctions). For a state like California, which is HIGHLY POPULATED and also a major import state with shipping ports littered all up and down, it makes sense for highways within the city to have a lower speed limit.

Are politics involved? Yes. do I think we all could survive with a 70mph speed limit? Yes. But it doesn’t matter enough to lobby for, because CA law enforcement generally doesn’t pull people over until they cross the 75-85 threshold.

—— So, the TL;DR answer from the perspective of a son of two state-employed highway engineers:

Drive the speed limit if you’d like, abiding by passing lane laws. If you do go over the limit, you’re generally safe going under 85, but it’d be a good idea to cap it at under 80. Also, be extremely careful around big rigs; it’s not worth trying to “beat” a big rig and turning into a pancake in the process. It’s not that they don’t want to stop for you; it’s that they literally CANNOT.

Also, driving 5-10MPH UNDER the speed limit… please refrain from doing that unless there are road conditions that warrant it. People argue “THE SPEED LIMIT IS ONLY THE TOP SPEED,” but they are fundamentally missing how the speed limits were DESIGNED. The assumption of both engineers and lawmakers is that traffic flow tends towards “too fast”. They design the roads as a free-flowing system and then cap the speed at a specific number. They are NOT ACCOUNTING for phantom congestion caused by overly timid drivers who can’t handle even the (already artificially lowered) set limit. By design, the roads are meant to function as closely as possible to “everyone drives within a 10mph differential”. That means the slow people drive at the already artificially lowered speed limit, with a 10mph (or so) tolerance for speeders. There is NOT another 10mph tolerance for overly slow drivers, and a 20mph differential between the fastest and slowest drivers on the same road is TOO MUCH.

—

The best (most efficient AND SAFE) method is to:

Accelerate BRISKLY (not violently fast, but also not taking three intersections to reach cruising speed)
Stay at (or not much higher) than the speed limit for as long as possible, WITHOUT constant/sudden/arbitrary brake inputs that confuse and frustrate drivers behind you.
At onramps, try your damndest to be roughly at highway speed by the end of the onramp. Like I mentioned with the trucks earlier, THEY CAN’T STOP FOR YOU. Merging into the highway at 40mph forces drivers to make otherwise unnecessary lane changes to avoid you, which is highly dangerous as it is more likely to be done blind (without enough time to look for blind spots).
If you KNOW there’s only roughly 1.5 miles before you need to exit… please for the love of your own life, start changing lanes. In simple terms, NO LAST SECOND SHIT.
STOP SLOWING DOWN when there’s an accident on the OPPOSITE highway.
STOP SLOWING DOWN when there’s an ever-so-slight curve in the road.

[-]

Commercial-Leek-6682@reddit

As someone who has been driving on California roads for a few decades, I'm glad that what I picked up from my years of driving is in line with how things are meant to be.

[-]

jabber1990@reddit

if the freeway is 65 i'm going 65...can't get in any legal trouble and cops won't bother you if you're going 65, once you go 66 its a crime

[-]

RedditUserSnap@reddit

This is reasonable. Eventually the people going 80 all pass you at hyper speed and then incidentally, you'll end up with a group of cars going the speed limit. If you go 80, you'll just be stuck in a group of cars going 80 and might get win the get pulled over by a cop lottery.

[-]

As long as my vehicle is safe at higher speeds, 80 all day. I'd actually prefer to be going slightly faster than the flow of traffic, I definitely do not want to be a "rock in a stream".

[-]

ragingduck@reddit

80mph in the fast or 2nd lane. If you want to stay legal, which you have every right to do, go 75mph in all the other lanes.

[-]

bigcee42@reddit

There is misconception that "x speed" is fast enough for the "fast lane."

There is no fast lane. It's a passing lane. Used for passing and not for cruising. Once you're done passing, at any speed, you should move over if it's open.

[-]

ragingduck@reddit

I agree.

[-]

user08182019@reddit

Correction, it’s a cruising lane but only for lifted Dodge Rams.

[-]

Moist_Rule9623@reddit

In my state the rule is, apparently:

Far right lane if you wanna go about 10 mph under the speed limit
Center lane if you wanna go JUST UNDER BUT NOT QUITE the speed limit; and
Left lane if you wanna drive approximately THE FUCKING SPEED OF SOUND; and you will be all but rammed and driven off the road if you have the audacity to be passing a car in the center lane doing 61 in a 65 at anything less than A FUCKING HUNDREDS MILES AN HOUR

Seriously Massachusetts sucks a gigantic fucking cock

[-]

haus11@reddit

That’s similar to the Chicago area but the middle lane is speeding. It breaks down to left lane is 85+, middle lane is 70 right lane is 55-65. The problem is the expressway speed limits are 55-70 and the only people that care are the right lane drivers.

It probably also helps that speeding tickets are lenient. 1-20 over is still the first level of ticket. So while you’re more likely to get stopped at 20 over the penalties are minimal, it’s like $115 fine and is real easy to keep off your driving record through traffic school or requesting court supervision and not getting pulled over for like 6 months. Unlike when I lived in VA and they would hit you with reckless driving for 20 over.

[-]

TheDirty6Thirty@reddit

Sounds like you need to learn how to fucking drive, honestly.

[-]

Hydraulis@reddit

I'm not sure how this is still a question. The speed limit is a limit, you cannot drive faster than that, ever. It doesn't matter if the people around your are doing backflips naked, you don't exceed the speed limit.

I've done 45 in a 25 mph zone following a cop who was just moving with traffic.

Outside of Philly if you're going to do the speed limit on any of the highways you need to be as far right as you can be, in a 70mph zone the "slower" traffic is moving at 80. People in executive cars, like bigger Audis, like to use all of the engine they paid for and go down the faster lanes at 100+mph.

[-]

Reddittoxin@reddit

The true answer really is "whatever I feel is safe for me personally in the given conditions" (but at least the speed limit in 99% of situations).

An example I got is this one 2 lane country highway I drive regularly. It's in an absolute state of disrepair, extremely rough road. Speed limit is 60, and I'm usually a 5-10 over kinda person, but with how crummy the road is there even I feel like 60 is the max I feel safe driving it. Any more and I worry I'm gonna bust a tire and go off in the ditch. Some people feel more confident than me and will run it at 75-80, but I aint gonna try to keep up with em.

Additionally, a lot of people around here don't know how to drive in the rain. We have clay soil here in Texas, so the roads are slick and shit bc there's nowhere for the water to drain. See a lot of knuckleheads think they're gonna do 85 on the highway and i sure as fuck ain't gonna try that. I know my car will hydroplane.

I als9 grew up in Missouri so I was no stranger to snow and ice driving. I remember during that 2021 freeze having a laugh at some of these Texans who were trying to go the speed limits on frozen roads and sliding right off. I let them zoom by and spin out while I maintained my safe, slow crawl.

Tl;Dr: it's nuanced. Sometimes the flow of traffic is safer bc its more predictable, sometimes those idiots have no idea what they're doing and you're better off going with your gut. Outside of things like bad weather, as long as someone's going the limit you can't really bitch, that's what you're supposed to expect anyway.