To draft or slow down?

[diver1972]

I think you're choosing to do something that's more dangerous than passing them on the right.

Well, passing on the right is dangerous, because the law states, in all states, that slower traffic should keep right.

Perhaps what I'm doing is more dangerous; however, I'll continue to do it until people learn to be courteous to me or until I see evidence that law enforcement is ticketing them regularly. I do it only in the more extreme cases when the other driver clearly has no regard for other traffic (as if he/she owns the road by themselves). It's a natural consequence to them for not obeying the law.

In certain places, "the rules of the road" say that the horn should not be used except if there's a safety reason, and that the horn should not be used to try to get a slower driver to move faster. So if you want people to respect "the rules of the road," it could be that you're setting a poor example.

Probably, but I'm setting the poor example for a driver who is already obviously already resistant to the effects of example-setting.

[diver1972]

Considering many people in the south have emingrated from New York, that is probably where they learned that "skill."

I also noted that behavior in NY (grew up in upstate NY, college in Long Island). If I were traveling, say 70 to 75 in the left lane, and that wasn't fast enough, people would simply go around - usually on the right.

Even better would be the European rules along the lines you specified. However that doesn't work in the US. Not sure why.

Because it's not enforced here.

I spent a month in Italy, and let me tell you that driving there is simply heavenly compared to stateside.

I've never been to Europe, but I've heard all about the driving experience over there. It works extremely well there, but that's because it's enforced. One will actually be cited for being in the inside lane while not actively passing, regardless of their speed.

[theholycow]

Originally Posted by diver1972

But...do you feel safer when, at the same time you're executing your right-to-left-courtesy-to-the-truck-driver lane change, that 'Vette runs up on you at 140mph out of nowhere?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syWJbD1rf0Y

If he's really going that fast (and I don't doubt that he is) while pulling that kind of volume and weight, then he's the one taking chances and he's the one who's assuming all the responsibility of the risk.

The only person anyone can depend on is themselves. Okay, so in the legal proceedings after the car is wrecked and you're dead, the other driver is at fault. Big whoop. Granted, an accident is pretty rare.

Why argue so hard against someone who is merely being uncommonly courteous? He's not realistically increasing anyone's risk, just being nice to someone while at the same time avoiding having a huge truck taking up his whole rearview. I fail to see what's wrong with what he described.

[diver1972]

Originally Posted by 1cheap1

A few years ago (10 ?) a study was done by the anti gun lobby, i think they came up with one in every three cars has a gun. That was here in the Los Angeles area. So i just try to be polite and not get any body angry. Just in the last month we had a rash of shooting deaths on the freeways.

Are you saying that some motorists (i.e. drivers) actually shot and killed other motorists (i.e. drivers) over non-collision events?

I've never heard of anyone being killed or injured, much less shot at, for doing what I do to already blatantly discourteous and ignorant drivers in the inside lane.

[diver1972]

The only person anyone can depend on is themselves.

Most people can't even do that.

Okay, so in the legal proceedings after the car is wrecked and you're dead, the other driver is at fault. Big whoop. Granted, an accident is pretty rare.

It's so rare that I've never even heard of it happening? Have you? Even if there is factual evidence to prove that a right-to-left lane change would have prevented a collision, why bother trying to protect against such a microscopic probability?

Why argue so hard against someone who is merely being uncommonly courteous?

I'm simply pointing out the other side of the coin. I'm pointing out things that he/she may not have previously considered.

I fail to see what's wrong with what he described.

Years of "slower traffic keep right" and "pass on the left" rules in this country (just like they do in Europe)...that's what's wrong with it. I am respectfully disagreeing with the technique for those reasons alone.

[theholycow]

Originally Posted by diver1972

Are you saying that some motorists (i.e. drivers) actually shot and killed other motorists (i.e. drivers) over non-collision events?

Happens all the time. Luckily, not where I drive...

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22road+rage%22+shot

[1cheap1]

diver1972, yes people have in the past and present do get shot for unknown reasons. Just in last 3 to 5 months 6 to 10 people have been killed on the Freeways by gun shots. Road rage over going slow, going fast, cutting people off, one gentleman stopped to help a lady with a flat, someone stopped got out of his car walked up an shot the poor man to death, turned around walked back to his car and left. He still has not been found. This is just on the freeways, i am not counting the drive by shooting on the city streets.

[monroe74]

"do you feel safer when, at the same time you're executing your right-to-left-courtesy-to-the-truck-driver lane change, that 'Vette runs up on you at 140mph out of nowhere?"

I think you misunderstood what I was saying about the 'Vette. Given that there are miles of visibility, I'm not worried that I'll be taken by surprise in that way. I was trying to describe the situation from the perspective of the trucker, who doesn't have the same rearward visibility that I have. In particular, I was trying to describe why a trucker in that situation could feel under pressure to move over at the right time: not too early, and not too late. I'd rather not make myself dependent on his ability to time that properly.

"If he's really going that fast ? while pulling that kind of volume and weight, then he's the one taking chances and he's the one who's assuming all the responsibility of the risk"

In that moment, I have exactly this much interest in adopting a perspective that is the least bit moralistic or legalistic: none whatsoever (when an accident is being analyzed in a courtroom, a comment like yours might have relevance; otherwise, not; I see holycow made the same point). I'm interested only in promoting safety, and being courteous. And since I'm traveling 20 under the limit, for no apparent reason, that makes me feel some extra duty to avoid inconveniencing him.

"I fail to see how, when he has that much visibility (i.e. 'miles'), a lane change could be any reasonable risk"

I'm not claiming that his lane change would be a great risk. I'm only claiming that the risk (to me, in particular) entailed in him changing lanes is marginally greater than the risk entailed in him going straight ahead, while I step aside. Do you disagree?

"there's no law nor commonly accepted courtesy practice for doing this"

I think that's because it's an inherently unusual situation. I got my license in 1972, and I never ran into this situation until 2008. I also never drove across Nevada and Utah until 2008.

"Isn't that his job as a professional driver? ? shouldn't the responsibility of this fall upon him?"

In the moment, I'm not thinking about job descriptions, and I'm not thinking about 'should.' I'm thinking about safety and courtesy.

"what if you compare a 2,500-pound small car to a 7,500-pound large SUV?"

The visibility and maneuverability constraints that apply to the driver of the LCV don't apply to the driver of the SUV. So I don't think the comparison is relevant.

[monroe74]

"In my experience, these rare circumstances [where someone is behind me and doesn't have a chance to pass] exist for only relatively short distances (i.e. 5 miles or less)"

If the person has decided to "ride [my] bumper while honking steadily" (have you ever run into anyone who drives that way?), then I have a chance to enhance my own safety by giving them a chance to pass me sooner, rather than later.

[monroe74]

"Perhaps what I'm doing is more dangerous; however, I'll continue to do it until people learn to be courteous to me"

In other words, you intend to continue your dangerous practice, even though you know it's dangerous, because the higher priority for you is teaching the other guy a lesson.

"It's a natural consequence to them for not obeying the law."

When I see someone driving poorly, my strategy is to take steps to create distance between them and me. Your strategy is to get really close and teach them a lesson. By the way, when you tailgate you're not "obeying the law." And one day when you rear-end one of these characters, the law will properly blame you, and tell you that the accident was "a natural consequence to [you] for not obeying the law."

"I'm setting the poor example for a driver who is already obviously already resistant to the effects of example-setting."

Good point. So you're going to persist in trying to teach these other folks a lesson, even though you realize that you're probably not going to accomplish anything.