So, I finally got 50.3MPG last week but I also got 2 rednecks gave me a middle finger and the other one cut me very closed. I drive mostly on the far right but occasionally move to 3rd lane. Yet, I don't cut them when I move to the 3rd lane. Btw, this is on the 101 - mostly 4 lane freeway.

Another thing, I will be getting my HOV sticker but what am I going to do with that ? Competing with soccer moms driving their vans at 80MPH on HOV ? I guess I will go back to 42MPG once I go solo on car pool lane.

 

I wouldn't worry about that too much. At times when the other lanes are going below the speed limit nobody drives 80 in the carpool lane. Most people feel that it's dangerous to be going more than, let's say, 20 MPH faster than the flow of traffic in the lane next to them. You never know when somebody is going to jump into the car pool lane without looking first. So I find that during heavy traffic it's rare for the car pool lane to be moving at more than 60.

 

It's quite simple - they think they own the road! Rednecks and 25-year old guys in huge pickup trucks are the ones that give me the most trouble. If we had a driver's test like the one mentioned in Germany, it would probably run them off the road.

HOV lanes are abused in Dallas to the point I don't know if they really help. Over three years ago I used the tollway in the evenings and cut my evening commute in half. Before that, traffic was at a standstill every other day from a wreck, often by someone jumping into the HOV at the wrong place....

 

Here's one question I have been pondering for a while. There seem to be two different kinds of drivers we're talking about here. There's the hypermilers who want to drive as slow and erratically as they want to get the best possible mpg, and there's the impatient drivers who do whatever they want to get places as fast as possible. Both groups seem to have a special driving needs and also seem to get pissed at each other pretty easily.

So, what makes the two groups so different from each other? They're both making a hazard out of themselves, and both have others pissed at them. The hypermilers probably feel justified because they have a noble purpose (but how noble is it to carry on with hazardous driving, regardless of ecological superiority?). The impatients probably feel justified because they may need to be somewhere or they may simply feel they have as much right to drive fast as the others have to drive slow.

In either case, is impatience a worse sin than the vanity and pride of FE? Is one truly more justified than the other? My take is, both groups are making driving hazardous for others and I wish they'd both calm down and try to match average traffic.

You can't control other people, so if it bothers you that your behavior pisses them off, then your best course is to either get over it or change your behavior.

 

Interesting observation. I think anyone approaching a drive with the attitude that they'll drive however they want and everyone else will just have to deal with it is a potential hazard on the road. Driving on crowded roads is best when folks cooperate. IMO 99% of traffic problems can be attributed to someone thinking that what they have to do is more important than anyone else on the road - that includes racing to somewhere or going below the limit to save fuel.

What gets me going is when people think driving the limit is a hazard. I drive the limit just about everywhere (when I'm alone I'll play FE games, but not in traffic). What I can't stand is people blowing around me and cutting me off because I'm (gasp) going the speed limit. I do have one trick for aha that may help. If I really want to go slow (at or slightly below the limit) I'll find someone else going that speed and follow them (like a truck or something). Then, it's not your fault. You're just stuck behind this "slow truck", so what can you do? :-) Makes driving slow someone else's fault. I've yet to see an aggressive driver flip off a semi.

 

Well, actually this IS a hazard if most people are driving a different speed. The posted speed is no guarantee that its the safest speed for all situations. The safest speed is the speed of traffic. This is a pretty well established statistical rule.

Some places that's slower, some that's faster than the limit. In New Mexico where I live there's so much difference in speeds that there really isn't an average speed - there's not enough traffic to establish one, and old cars last forever here and there's lots of people taking limp-along junkers to mexico. Add to that people doing 85-90 in hummers and lowriders and you have hazards everywhere.

 

My counter question to you is, who is the greater hazard - those that obey the law, or those that break it? Just because the mob is breaking the law does not make it right or safe. I should not feel terrorized into speeding just because everyone else is, nor should I be put at risk because of it either. I will disagree slightly with the "statistically safest" speed, in that a densly-packed 4-lane highway of people going 80 MPH is a pileup waiting to happen. Not to mention that accidents at that speed are much more severe than say at 50.

Accidents are rarely caused by individuals driving in an attentive, safe manner (including safe speeds). Accidents are caused by aggressive or inattentive drivers. Few people know how to drive 80 MPH safely. Few people even pay attention to their driving at any speed. Problem is most folks feel immortal behind the wheel.

For me, if I'm on a multi-lane road and I drive the speed limit in the right lane, folks can pound sand if they don't like it. They can gesture to their heart's content. If I'm on a two-lane road and folks are moving along, I'll move with them only because fools trying to pass on two-lane roads rarely do so safely and create a hazard for just about everyone.

I don't think one can make an argument that law abiding drivers are the problem plaguing our highways.

 

Quote:

Just because the mob is breaking the law does not make it right or safe. I should not feel terrorized into speeding just because everyone else is, nor should I be put at risk because of it either.

Very well said. I always feel like the person tailgating me is "trying to FORCE me to speed up or to speed," and not only do I object to THAT on the surface, I get doubly irritated that THEY are mad at ME for slowing them down, because chances are about 95% that they have no reason for going that fast other than habit.

I'd love to have a big ole' bumper sticker in huge letters across my trunk that says:

"Unless you are heading to a hospital or to a fire, you have NO VALID REASON for going that fast so STOP trying to force ME to speed up because of YOUR perceived scheduling problems."

 

Unless you drive a double-wide, that won't fit.

How about "Slow down. Smell the roses." ?

 

I never claimed that law abiding drivers are responsible for accidents. Nor was I trying to justify agressive drivers. I merely made two simple points.

1. The safest speed is the speed of traffic.
2. If you don't like how others respond to your driving, get over it or change your habits, because you can't change other people.

We have no greater insight into their reasons for choosing a speed than they have of ours. We say they have no reason to go so fast, well WTF do we know, why should we get to decide what's reasonable or not? They think we have no right to go so slow on the highway and get in their way, well WTF do they know about our reasoning? The point I was making is that BOTH groups of irritated drivers are a hazard, especially if they're going significantly different speed than the rest of traffic. That's not a mere opinion, it's a statistical FACT I have learnied in reading, and many many hours of driving safety training as a commercial driver and instructor.

We're all in control of our driving experience. If we don't like how someone else is driving, we can get away from them. If we don't like being tailgated, we can step on it or get out of the way. We can control what we do, but we can not control what others do, so which one is healthier to act on?