Only in Md.- Woman Cited for Driving 63 in a 65 MPH Zone

[WRW]

Just to be clear on the matter, we are talking about an instance where a driver wishes to pass, checks his mirror, sees another car in the passing lane approaching at a greater speed and pulls in front with no consideration for the faster car. That is correct? Or possibly in the same lane but still approaching at a greater speed?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[gunderwood]

Just to be clear on the matter, we are talking about an instance where a driver wishes to pass, checks his mirror, sees another car in the passing lane approaching at a greater speed and pulls in front with no consideration for the faster car. That is correct? Or possibly in the same lane but still approaching at a greater speed?

Sort of. dorminWS proposed a scenario where driver B is passing driver A and then driver C is behind driver B flashing lights and wanting to pass both driver B and A. Details were not given how this occurred. Since specific details were not given on why this occurred we have to examine the possible ways it could occur.

1. Driver B does what you first described, pulls out either not realizing that driver C is moving faster (lack of awareness) or simply doesn't care (an a$$hat). Either way, driver B is in the wrong because they have either knowingly or unknowingly have created a situation which may end in an accident as well as being generally rude. How bad the situation is depends on a lot of factors (such as speed differential, awareness of driver C, etc.). However, all of this can be avoided if driver B simply drives more politely and with greater responsibility. Nothing says driver B can not pass, but to do so without regard for others is rude and dangerous. In my experience, this is the most likely cause of the original dorminWS scenario.

2. Driver B is aware, there isn't any traffic close enough behind to evaluate speed differential, and starts to pass, but does so at such a slow rate that it takes many seconds to complete the pass. In this case driver C is now behind driver B because >30sec ago driver C was outside of driver B's visibility. This too is a problem, but driver C can usually manage this with much less than braking (e.g. using the gas peddle to decelerate). However, what does this mean that driver B actually did? Driver B started a pass without sufficient visibility to ensure that the pass could be completed; bad idea.

Consider the more extreme example of passing on a two lane road. Would you start a pass not knowing that there is sufficient room to complete it safely? Of course not...unless you like gambling with your life. The proper thing to do is wait or make the pass happen quicker so that it is completed within the visibility you have available. If the car doesn't have enough grunt to make the pass happen quicker or driving at the speeds required to do so isn't safe, the correct answer is do NOT pass. E.g. a pass that is safe in my S2000 may not be safe in my Civic.

The concept is the same, the application is the same and the rules are the same between passing on a highway and passing on the two-lane road. The only difference is that the two-lane road has much more risk so more people recognize that and driver better. Stated another way, given that there is much higher risk to themselves when passing on a two-lane road, they purposely don't drive like a$$hats.

3. Driver B is aware and passing properly, but driver A speeds up. In such a case, driver A is the a$$hat. However, driver B should recognize this and replan accordingly. First, driver B should now realize they want to be no where around driver A. Driver B can slow down and follow at a safe distance. Driver B can also speed up and complete the pass. Generally if driver B is paying attention, they should be able to figure this out and take action long before driver C is on their bumper and flashing lights. Generally, if driver C is able to do this it really means this is sub-set of #1 or #2...just that driver A is also not driving safe or nice.

4. Driver C is a land-shark. In this case driver B may have done everything correctly, but because driver C is driving at much higher rates of speed and weaving in and out of traffic, it's not reasonable to blame driver B if they did everything else correctly. This happens fairly rarely though. I find that people believe there are more land-sharks than there actually are because they aren't paying enough attention. I.e. a car that passes them suddenly or is suddenly behind them flashing lights must be a land-shark because they (the person assuming) were driving aware and properly. The truth is most likely they weren't paying enough attention and driver C approached them over the last 30sec-2mins and they were startled when they suddenly became aware of driver C (too late of course).

[WRW]

I've seen #3 a lot and don't automatically assign it to asshattery. Like the example I gave earlier of the advancing car slowing to pace, I'm convinced that it is an unconscious action. Some people seem only to be able to judge their speed by others around them (speedometers are just a distraction to them). Even on two lane roads they will speed up 4-5 mph when being passed, oblivious to their actions. Others do qualify.

As for #2, that situation is exacerbated by the speed limits, we are all aware of those speed limits and their effects on traffic flow and unless we can change that we might plan accordingly...or not.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[gunderwood]

I've seen #3 a lot and don't automatically assign it to asshattery. Like the example I gave earlier of the advancing car slowing to pace, I'm convinced that it is an unconscious action. Some people seem only to be able to judge their speed by others around them (speedometers are just a distraction to them). Even on two lane roads they will speed up 4-5 mph when being passed, oblivious to their actions. Others do qualify.

The driver has the responsibility to maintain proper control of their car. If they are not doing it intentionally, then they obviously aren't paying enough attention to driving. Drivers ED 101. Perhaps they shouldn't be driving in the first place then?

As for #2, that situation is exacerbated by the speed limits, we are all aware of those speed limits and their effects on traffic flow and unless we can change that we might plan accordingly...or not.

Agreed, speed limits make it worse, but they don't change the fact that the passing driver needs to do so responsibly. If they can't do that because that would require travelling at a faster pace than they feel comfortable with (legal or otherwise), they shouldn't execute the pass.


All of the things you're proposing are items and considerations that a passing driver should evaluate before executing the pass. None of them remove the responsibility from the driver or mitigate their inappropriate actions. I doubt people on this forum would make excuses for bad firearm safety...

1. I've seen people with their finger on the trigger, but I also saw that the gun was unloaded...so it didn't bother me much.

2. I've seen people bring a loaded gun in, but it was cased and not chambered...it must be their HD gun so it's ok.

3. Etc.

We wouldn't do this for firearms, why do we do it for driving? Both are potentially dangerous when misused. Before you can correct the problem, you have to be aware of it. Most people don't realize that their finger is on the trigger until someone else tells them. Only with consistent correction and effort do they build the muscle memory to do things right.

Not paying attention or operating improperly with a firearm or an automobile will get people killed. It's not OK even if a lot of people do it.


Edit: Perhaps the difference is the lack of real driver education in this county leads the impression that there aren't objective, good driving rules like the gun safety rules?

[WRW]

Here is the law as she is written, just in case anyone is still reading:
"§ 46.2-842.1. Drivers to give way to certain overtaking vehicles on divided highways.

It shall be unlawful to fail to give way to overtaking traffic when driving a motor vehicle to the left and abreast of another motor vehicle on a divided highway. On audible or light signal, the driver of the overtaken vehicle shall move to the right to allow the overtaking vehicle to pass as soon as the overtaken vehicle can safely do so. A violation of this section shall not be construed as negligence per se in any civil action.

(1989, c. 708, § 46.1-211.1.)"

Of interest is the exclusion of negligence in civil action.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[gunderwood]

Here is the law as she is written, just in case anyone is still reading:
"§ 46.2-842.1. Drivers to give way to certain overtaking vehicles on divided highways.

It shall be unlawful to fail to give way to overtaking traffic when driving a motor vehicle to the left and abreast of another motor vehicle on a divided highway. On audible or light signal, the driver of the overtaken vehicle shall move to the right to allow the overtaking vehicle to pass as soon as the overtaken vehicle can safely do so. A violation of this section shall not be construed as negligence per se in any civil action.

(1989, c. 708, § 46.1-211.1.)"

Of interest is the exclusion of negligence in civil action.

Yes, that section is necessary because VA is one of the few states which still operates off of contributory negligence standard vice the far more common comparative negligence standard. Under comparable negligence each driver is responsible for their share of the problem, say 20/80 or 50/50 or whatever. However, under VA's contributory negligence standard even if one driver is only 1% responsible and the other is 99%, the 1% driver contributed and thus has no right for a claim. For example...

If the driver fails to follow that statue, the other driver gets impatient and then executes a dangerous move which causes an accident. Without that clause and under VA's contributory negligence, neither driver could make a claim against the other. In other states they could based on comparative negligence, but then the courts have to decide how much each was responsible.

Please note that it doesn't say that failing to yield isn't negligence, but rather than it can not be considered negligence per se (i.e. negligence in of itself). Or stated another way, the courts can't consider it as prima facie evidence of negligence and toss the claim out without a hearing. However, it's possible and likely that upon hearing the case the court would decide it was contributory negligence and toss the claim out...or they could not, just depends on the situation.

Edit: As I understand it, but INAL, the contributory negligence standard is only applicable for civil cases. Thus, the statue makes no mention or has any need too for criminal cases. It's entirely possible to have the criminal case and civil case disagree. Say no claim in civil court, but one or more drivers convicted of vehicular manslaughter in a criminal case.

[dorminWS]

"as soon as the overtaken vehicle can safely do so" is not only vague and broad, but inherently subjective as a standard. So the statutory standard doesn't resolve much, as I see it.

Quite a bit has been read into the question I posed (by which I sought to explore the comparative rights of two drivers who are BOTH breaking the speed laws) that I did not intend, and as someone has already observed, this subject has become a little tiresome. So I'll just observe that it all boils down to what's reasonable under the circumstances. As I see it, that means there are times when you need to get out of the passing lane and there are times when you needn't and oughtn't. And this "traffic model" of Gunderwood's where all drivers are cogs in a gigantic machine with hard-and-fast mechanical rules designed to maximize the efficient flow of traffic just does not reflect reality. They're all trying to maximize their own progress down the road and the majority of them have little regard for the same goals on the part of other drivers. Also, by logical extension, it is a system where the right of way always belongs to the worst lawbreaker (assuming there's alweays somebody who'll be speeding). That seems to me like a somewhat flawed system. Reminds me of what my old Pappy used to mutter when someone passed him at an excessive rate of speed: "Drive like hell, Buddy," He'd say, "you'll be the first one to get there."

"Nuff said, I think.

[SHMIV]

This discussion has also demonstrated that different folks have their own personal rules of the road, based on a variety of sources. And, of those rules based on logical sources, if everyone did it that way, things would certainly flow more smoothly.

Perhaps more driver training would be beneficial to us all, if for no other reason than to get us all on the same page. But, then, I'd hate to see such a thing made a law... we've got way too many of those.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Reverenddel]

How about this?

1.) Drive the vehicle. No eating, fiddling with the radio/CD, or texting/calling
2.) If you're seeing a faster car come up behind you? Move over. You can move back.
3.) If you're in the slow lane and an exit is coming up? Move over. You can move back.
4.) It's not personal, it's driving.
5.) It's not your driving record, stop worrying about what other people are doing.
6.) You won't be able to go the speed you want. Be it FASTER, or SLOWER! Stop complaining.
7.) If you cannot drive highway speeds, do not take the highways.
8.) You cannot drive highway speeds on Primary/secondary roads.
9.) When you think your vehicle has a mechanical problem, fix it.
10.) Don't trust "I'm okay" when it comes to alcohol, medications, blood sugar, or sleep deprivation.

10 simple rules, follow them, no one gets hurt.

[gunderwood]

This discussion has also demonstrated that different folks have their own personal rules of the road, based on a variety of sources. And, of those rules based on logical sources, if everyone did it that way, things would certainly flow more smoothly.

Perhaps more driver training would be beneficial to us all, if for no other reason than to get us all on the same page. But, then, I'd hate to see such a thing made a law... we've got way too many of those.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

How about this?

1.) Drive the vehicle. No eating, fiddling with the radio/CD, or texting/calling
2.) If you're seeing a faster car come up behind you? Move over. You can move back.
3.) If you're in the slow lane and an exit is coming up? Move over. You can move back.
4.) It's not personal, it's driving.
5.) It's not your driving record, stop worrying about what other people are doing.
6.) You won't be able to go the speed you want. Be it FASTER, or SLOWER! Stop complaining.
7.) If you cannot drive highway speeds, do not take the highways.
8.) You cannot drive highway speeds on Primary/secondary roads.
9.) When you think your vehicle has a mechanical problem, fix it.
10.) Don't trust "I'm okay" when it comes to alcohol, medications, blood sugar, or sleep deprivation.

10 simple rules, follow them, no one gets hurt.

Both good points.

Edit: Had to highlight this one. Stop worrying what others are doing and if they are "worse" than you. Drive and live your life so as to avoid getting caught in their folly if and when it occurs. Yes, that often means yielding the right away to avoid them. Who cares if you're right and they're wrong or not! That's for LE to figure out...I just prefer to get where I'm going without dying. How stupid would you feel if you were critically injured because that jackwagon shouldn't be driving that fast so you were a jackwagon back? Sheer stupidity.

[gunderwood]

"as soon as the overtaken vehicle can safely do so" is not only vague and broad, but inherently subjective as a standard. So the statutory standard doesn't resolve much, as I see it.

Quite a bit has been read into the question I posed (by which I sought to explore the comparative rights of two drivers who are BOTH breaking the speed laws) that I did not intend, and as someone has already observed, this subject has become a little tiresome. So I'll just observe that it all boils down to what's reasonable under the circumstances. As I see it, that means there are times when you need to get out of the passing lane and there are times when you needn't and oughtn't. And this "traffic model" of Gunderwood's where all drivers are cogs in a gigantic machine with hard-and-fast mechanical rules designed to maximize the efficient flow of traffic just does not reflect reality. They're all trying to maximize their own progress down the road and the majority of them have little regard for the same goals on the part of other drivers. Also, by logical extension, it is a system where the right of way always belongs to the worst lawbreaker (assuming there's alweays somebody who'll be speeding).

Now you're just making excuses for your law breaking. It's like comparing sins...I may have done X bad thing, but good thing I'm not as bad as that guy! Utter nonsense and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding.

That seems to me like a somewhat flawed system. Reminds me of what my old Pappy used to mutter when someone passed him at an excessive rate of speed: "Drive like hell, Buddy," He'd say, "you'll be the first one to get there."

"Nuff said, I think.

What's tiring is people who drive without a regard of anyone else, have no car control skills, are distracted with secondary tasks, and are completely unaware of any of it...and think their AMAZING drivers.

Dive like an idiot and you'll get to hell faster, even if you're doing the speed limit.

[dorminWS]

@gunderwood:
You don't understand, young feller............. I ain't apologizing to nobody for nothin'. And I try not to take this stuff personally. That's good advice for anybody who'll take it.

[gunderwood]

@gunderwood:
You don't understand, young feller............. I ain't apologizing to nobody for nothin'. And I try not to take this stuff personally. That's good advice for anybody who'll take it.

Out of curiosity, why should anyone take that advice since it's obvious you "ain't apologizing to nobody for nothin?" Wouldn't such open mindedness contradict the main premise of dorminWS is always right regardless?

The only difference between you driving 74MPH without regard in the left lane and someone driving 45MPH is your self-righteousness. Guess what, they've got just as much. No wonder our highways are a disaster.

[dorminWS]

@gunderwood:
You don't understand, young feller............. I ain't apologizing to nobody for nothin'. And I try not to take this stuff personally. That's good advice for anybody who'll take it.

Out of curiosity, why should anyone take that advice since it's obvious you "ain't apologizing to nobody for nothin?" Wouldn't such open mindedness contradict the main premise of dorminWS is always right regardless?

The only difference between you driving 74MPH without regard in the left lane and someone driving 45MPH is your self-righteousness. Guess what, they've got just as much. No wonder our highways are a disaster.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Self-righteous? I ain't self-righteous. I just toldja: I don't GIVE A SH!T whether you think it's right or not. It's just your opinion of how the world ought to work.

This reminds me of something older folks sometimes say when people won't just let something like this go: "You'd argue with a milepost."

[gunderwood]

Self-righteous? I ain't self-righteous. I just toldja: I don't GIVE A SH!T whether you think it's right or not. It's just your opinion of how the world ought to work.

This reminds me of something older folks sometimes say when people won't just let something like this go: "You'd argue with a milepost."

It's not my opinion. See unlike you, I learned from a series of professionals. I was open minded, listened to their instruction, contemplated it, and then adopted it into my driving. Before being trained, I likely drove like you. I definitely was less safe. The interesting thing is that regardless of where they taught, how long they've been teaching, etc. it was all the same. Sure, a few different techniques for car control, but virtually identical because the laws of physics don't care who you are and rational, objective evaluations of car maneuvers don't either.

Well, if I argue with a signpost, you'd argue with God himself. Good luck with that.

[dorminWS]

Self-righteous? I ain't self-righteous. I just toldja: I don't GIVE A SH!T whether you think it's right or not. It's just your opinion of how the world ought to work.

This reminds me of something older folks sometimes say when people won't just let something like this go: "You'd argue with a milepost."

It's not my opinion. See unlike you, I learned from a series of professionals. I was open minded, listened to their instruction, contemplated it, and then adopted it into my driving. Before being trained, I likely drove like you. I definitely was less safe. The interesting thing is that regardless of where they taught, how long they've been teaching, etc. it was all the same. Sure, a few different techniques for car control, but virtually identical because the laws of physics don't care who you are and rational, objective evaluations of car maneuvers don't either.

Well, if I argue with a signpost, you'd argue with God himself. Good luck with that.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Maybe that's why I'm not persuaded by you; I'm so used to arguing with God.

<sigh> I'll try one more time:

You're talking about what expert professional drivers teach a select few who are priviledged to take their exclusive classes (and one could mount a strong argument that even THEIR consensus constitutes just another opinion based upon a very narrow construction of highway use - but it really doesn't matter for the purposes of this ?discussion?). That would be wonderfull if the OTHER 99.9% of the drivers on the road had taken those classes and were willing to abide by the lessons. But they haven't and they won't. They're going to be subject to all the pig-headed, selfish, ignorant, self-centered, self deluded and wildly dangerous folly you have ascribed to me. And those 99.9% are going to be right there in the way of, and obstructing and endangering, you .1% who are the anointed and actually know all there is about how to drive and manage traffic. That's why your disciplined, rational and orderly traffic model won't work. Problem is, you're trying to live in the world that ought to be, and I'm just trying to live with the world that is. I've got to. I'm too damned old to wait on it to change.

[gunderwood]

Self-righteous? I ain't self-righteous. I just toldja: I don't GIVE A SH!T whether you think it's right or not. It's just your opinion of how the world ought to work.

This reminds me of something older folks sometimes say when people won't just let something like this go: "You'd argue with a milepost."

It's not my opinion. See unlike you, I learned from a series of professionals. I was open minded, listened to their instruction, contemplated it, and then adopted it into my driving. Before being trained, I likely drove like you. I definitely was less safe. The interesting thing is that regardless of where they taught, how long they've been teaching, etc. it was all the same. Sure, a few different techniques for car control, but virtually identical because the laws of physics don't care who you are and rational, objective evaluations of car maneuvers don't either.

Well, if I argue with a signpost, you'd argue with God himself. Good luck with that.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Maybe that's why I'm not persuaded by you; I'm so used to arguing with God.

<sigh> I'll try one more time:

You're talking about what expert professional drivers teach a select few who are priviledged to take their exclusive classes (and one could mount a strong argument that even THEIR consensus constitutes just another opinion based upon a very narrow construction of highway use - but it really doesn't matter for the purposes of this ?discussion?). That would be wonderfull if the OTHER 99.9% of the drivers on the road had taken those classes and were willing to abide by the lessons. But they haven't and they won't. They're going to be subject to all the pig-headed, selfish, ignorant, self-centered, self deluded and wildly dangerous folly you have ascribed to me. And those 99.9% are going to be right there in the way of, and obstructing and endangering, you .1% who are the anointed and actually know all there is about how to drive and manage traffic. That's why your disciplined, rational and orderly traffic model won't work. Problem is, you're trying to live in the world that ought to be, and I'm just trying to live with the world that is. I've got to. I'm too damned old to wait on it to change.

I guess there is no point in trying to improve anything, include gun safety, driving habits, etc. It's just the way it is.

Actually, it's demonstrable false what you're suggesting. First, three are other systems which are far better by nearly every measure and it starts with proper education. Our driving Ed classes are a joke. However, It is also true that there are far worse systems (ever see real 3rd world driving first hand...holy sh!t that's some crazy stuff), yet they occur because of even worse driver training...as in practically nonexistent.

Just like gun safety, we (society) should strive to improve towards an objectively better standard. That means when we see someone do something stupid like muzzle other people at the range, we correct them. Same goes for people arguing dangerous driving habits on forums, etc.

What would you do/think if you witnessed someone muzzle others at the range, you corrected them, and they said "I ain't apologizing to no-one for nothin?" You'd think they were arrogant and foolish because not muzzling someone is basic gun safety and that's not up for negotiation. Purposefully or unintentionally putting yourself in a driving situation where the only reason an accident doesn't occur is because of another driver taking evasive action, is just as arrogant and foolish. The fact that some people do it and that's they way it is, is NOT a valid defense for the behavior or doing it yourself.

Edit: The only difference is you're educated enough to know the foolishness of one and ignorant enough to not on the other.

[dorminWS]

Sure is a good thing I don't care what you think. Otherwise I might get p!ssed off. Maybe in the future we can talk about something that either we agree on or that you are less passionate about.

[GeneFrenkle]

TL;DR - do the speed limit, and stay in the right hand lane.

I can't keep up with the quote blocks. If it were source code, it'd have a CC of 9, purt near untestable. LOL

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[SHMIV]

At this point, more/better driving classes or not, I'd be happy if folks would simply pay attention to their driving, communicate their intentions (ie. Using turn signals when turning or changing lanes) and take the other drivers into consideration.

I was thinking about this as I drove to Wisconson today. Considering that everyone under the age of 40 has had it drummed into their heads that they are so very special (by the schools, by tv shows, by advertisements, etc.), it's no wonder that the roads are paved with @$$#ol3s.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]