Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site loral.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!amd70!decwrl!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdccsu3!loral!simard From: simard@loral.UUCP Newsgroups: net.auto,net.flame Subject: >55mph and legality Message-ID: <203@loral.UUCP> Date: Sat, 23-Jun-84 19:26:27 EDT Article-I.D.: loral.203 Posted: Sat Jun 23 19:26:27 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 28-Jun-84 04:19:24 EDT Organization: Loral Instrumentation, San Diego, CA Lines: 69 >>When I am driving somewhere between 55 and 65 (yes, I confess; it has >>happened), and some inconsiderate moron piles up behind me, leaves nine >>inches between my bumper and his, and expects me to slide over for him, >>I may, purely in the interest of safety (as I would avoid any other >>careless, hazardous driving menace), but I find that attitude infuriating. >> >>Nobody has any right whatsoever to drive above the legal limit, unless >>s/he has a little red light on top and a siren. If you are intent on >>exceeding the limit, DO IT AT YOUR INCONVENIENCE, NOT MINE! If you are >>unwilling to change lanes to accommodate your unsafe, illegal impatience, >>WHY THE %&*!! DO YOU EXPECT ME TO??? >Ray, I don't expect you to, but the Motor Vehicle Code certainly does. >Most likely, you could get a CHP officer to quote it for you. The section I'm >referring to is the one that is summarized on the little signs beside the >freeway--the little signs that say "Slower traffic keep right." Neither the >signs nor the law exempt 55-mph-drivers from the requirement to keep to the >right so that faster drivers can pass. Please take another look at my original statement. There is something there to the effect that "I will move over in the interest of safety, but the attitude of the driver infuriating." Nowhere (repeat: NOWHERE) do I support deliberatly occupying a lane to restrain traffic. I am here protesting the attitudes and practices of those who ignore the speed laws and create the hazardous situation in the first place. The MVC says I have to make way; it does not say I have to like it. >The basic philosophy of the California MVC--and probably that of other states >and countries--is "keep the traffic moving, safely". Yep. Drivers insisting on doing 70+ are keeping traffic moving UNsafely. >As a good rule of thumb, >anything that keeps the traffic moving, safely, is probably legal: anything >that obstructs traffic or is otherwise hazardous, is probably illegal. Among the practices that create hazards is the following of another car at any distance that does not allow for stopping in the event of a disturbance ahead. Almost universally, drivers intending to drive at high speeds tailgate drivers ahead of them. This is probably more hazardous than any other activity mentioned so far. >The faster driver is, indeed, >driving at a speed that violates the >"Energy Conservation Speed Limit" law--but >that has no bearing, under the law, >on your requirement to move over. He might >be driving at an unsafe speed: that, too, would not excuse you from the legal >duty to allow him to pass. Where, oh where, did I suggest any differently?? For the record: in my seventeen years of driving, I have been ticketed twice: both times for doing 65 mph in the fast lane of the freeway. Each time I had the dubious privilege of hearing the local judge state (he must repeat this daily) "When will you people learn that 56 mph is against the law!!!!????" -- Ray Simard Loral Instrumentation, San Diego {ucbvax, ittvax!dcdwest}!sdcsvax!sdccsu3!loral!simard