To draft or slow down?

[diver1972]

Originally Posted by 1993CivicVX

This argument aside, just the fact that they have a clear and obvious reason for going slow means the trucker has no right to get annoyed. We all get impatient when drivers are not meeting the status quo--when someone takes too long to make a right hand turn (just make the turn already!) or goes too slow down the highway. We have more patience when the reason for their behavior is immediately apparent to our senses--only fellow gassavers can guess someone is going 20mph below the speed limit because they're trying to save gas, not because they're trying to be a nuesance or aren't fit for driving on the highway because they're afraid of going faster than 55 or whatever the reason the trucker would have to guess at for the unusual driving pattern of the motorist.

So, if I put a hand-made a huge posterboard or cardboard sign in my rear window (assuming it were legal) stating "Going slower to save fuel", then the trucker is hereby notified and has "no right to get annoyed" (your words)?

Originally Posted by 1993CivicVX

Exercising this courtesy is in no way being a doormat for the big rig.

I disagree.

Originally Posted by 1993CivicVX

It's merely a way of showing the big rig extra courtesy since he is a bigger, and thus more significant vehicle demanding more respect.

So, where does this stop? Should large sedans yield to mid-size SUVs? Should small sedans yield to compact SUVs? Should sub-compacts yield to mid-size sedans?

Originally Posted by 1993CivicVX

But even if you can't see it, surely there must be something to our argument if Monroe and I both feel exactly same way about it?

Yes, there is something to it (and I'll try to say this as non-offensively as possible): you're both somewhat paranoid and overly cautious with your approach to driving that you might actually be sub-consciously and inadvertently setting yourselves up for an accident. Have you ever heard of the concept of self-fulfilling prophecy?

Originally Posted by 1993CivicVX

Another thing to remember, originally we were not saying one *should* move over to the left in this situation--just that there is justification for doing so.

Point taken.

[diver1972]

Originally Posted by usxpop

OK, I've read all the posts so far on this subject and must say I'm pleased that, so far, there's no flaming of anyone by anyone else.

Thanks for chiming in with your professional-based insights.

[diver1972]

Originally Posted by mjo

The government should start a...

I always get scared when I hear or read things that start with this.

Originally Posted by mjo

Now what needs to be done is: 1. A standard for communicating between car ECUs the necessary information to allow safe automatic cruise control 2. Testing and verification of ensuring safety under several different driving scenarios. 3. Have the car companies produce a limited number of cars equipped with automatic cruise control hardware. 4. Build and open a new platooning-only highway system that is a few dozen miles long. 5. Then when the concept is thoroughly tested, some initial problems are corrected, and this concept becomes more popular begin to expand this new highway system until all cars are platooning-enabled.

I like this.

[diver1972]

Originally Posted by 8307c4

Not to get into a tiff of lane switching, it's a matter of if someone is already in a lane that has nothing but open space in front, why should I move out of my lane so they can get in it just to pass?

Because, by doing so, you're doing two things:

1) you're positively contributing to the overall flow of traffic (i.e. increasing the number of vehicles, all with potentially varying speeds, that can move from point A to point B in a fixed amount of time)

and

2) you're positively contributing to safety by acting in a predictable manner (i.e. following the same set of rules that have been established and that everyone else should be following as well)

Originally Posted by 8307c4

I saw it in Europe...

So, you should be able to nod your head in agreement as you read my two prior statements.

Originally Posted by 8307c4

But it makes little sense to have two cars switch lanes a total of three times when not 20 seconds ago they could have just kept on going and the faster car passed the slower one ooops in the open lane...

Yes, it doesn't make sense if you operate on the assumption that there will always be two, and never more than two, vehicles on any given stretch of road. What roads do you travel on regularly where you can guarantee this condition most, if not all, of the time?

This rule of the road is based on the assumption that there can be three or more cars using the same stretch of road (e.g. 1/2 mile stretch, 1 mile stretch, etc.). It's a rule that, when practiced on any roadway, will nearly always prevent an accident. While it may not be very convenient to the drivers involved in lane-changing, rules of the road are not made to convenience the drivers...they're made for the safety of all road users.

[GasSavers_RoadWarrior]

Rules are to keep the people with little common sense from killing each other too easily. Somehow this is regarded as a good thing.

[R.I.D.E.]

I asked a cop once, if I was sitting at an intersection and I saw someone coming up fast behind me with no chance to stop should I pull into the intersection to avoid the wreck?

He told me it was illegal.

I told him I would let the judge decide that.

I slow down when its practical, without causing problems with the traffic around me.

I draft when the opportunity arises, and I can do it safely with enough distance between the vehicles for me to avoid road debris, and stop in the space between the vehicles.

Sometimes both of these options are simply not available. I have seen 65 miles of Interstate with average distances between cars of less than 5 lengths, which is about half the distance I would normally draft in the same situation. If you allow any more space there is always someone who will pull over in front of you. I have seen this happen with less than 1 car length between the offender and the car in front of and behind him. Close enough for me to read the month and year of the stickers on the license plate, at 70 MPH.

Great for gas mileage, but very hard on the nerves, and it inevitably causes the whiplash effect when the driver behind the idiot hits his brakes.

In that situation I will get behind a large truck and stay in his wake. He is probably the best driver around and the idiots that cut in front of you usually do not pull over behind a truck, because they know they will get stuck there.
It also gives me the pull over on the shoulder escape option in case things go wrong. The truckers also try to avoid the whiplash brake application scenario to save fuel.

65.44 MPG at 65 MPH using that tactic.

regards
gary

[GasSavers_RoadWarrior]

Yep that's my take on those crazy tight traffic days too, if it's impossible to maintain a decent gap, you're better off behind a truck.

[banzaigtv]

Here's a good explanation of why everyone should drive 55 mph on highways (and why the government should impose 55 mph speed limits):

http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/26/auto...ion=2008032711

[Snax]

Hell no! I remember the days of 55. I don't need the government regulating it down to that level to know that driving slower will save fuel, and the majority of people realize this as well. Why not make it 45 mph and save even more fuel?

The cost of fuel is a regulator in itself, but taking away the freedom to get places more quickly is just over controlling our behavior. Just take a look at all of the pickups and SUVs sitting on dealer lots these days. Clearly, more people are getting it.

[aych]

question! how do you guys get 3 stripes at 43ft each? Our stripes up here in canada average about 4-5 ft on highways. so 3 stripes plus the blanks are only 60 ft or so.