Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#18
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
JJ wrote:
Dee D. Flint wrote: "JJ" wrote in message ... Dwight Stewart wrote: In general, you're right. Nobody is supposed to break the speed limit, so laws about slower vehicles moving to the right and not impeding the flow of traffic don't defend the speeder's actions. But, by the same token, slower drivers are supposed to move to the right and not impede the flow of traffic (if those are the laws in your state), so someone speeding doesn't defend the actions of the slower driver who is impeding the flow of traffic either. I know that sounds strange, but there is some logic behind it. On multiple lane highways, congestion (cars bunching too closely together) is one of the most common causes of accidents. And congestion is dangerious at all highway speeds, but even more so when drivers are speeding. To prevent that bunching up, many states have adopted laws to encourage slower drivers to move to the right so faster vehicles can proceed without bunching up behind the slower vehicle. The idea is to keep all vehicles flowing smoothly - yes, even if some are speeding. W5TWIT wants to play citizen traffic cop, it isn't for her to decide if someone is going to fast and make them slow down by staying in the left lane (even though she is exceeding the speed limit herself), she is obliged to move over and let the faster traffic pass. It is up to the authorities to take care of the speeder. From the description, it is the person coming up behind that is trying to disrupt the flow of traffic as Kim stated that she was going the same speed as the traffic ahead of her. The person coming up behind would be then trying to force a whole stream of cars one after another to move over for him/her. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE I fail to see what is so hard to understand about the law...slower traffic stays to the right. It really is very simple. Until 1977 the road signs in Texas read, "SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT", those signs are being replaced with "LEFT LANE FOR PASSING ONLY". How much clearer than that can it be? Even Kim should be able to grasp the concept of that. It is all spelled out in the Star Telegram article. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Is Michael Jackson Innocent? Is KE4TEW a father of felons? YES | General | |||
FS:NOS JACKSON BROS. 2-Section Air Variables w/pics | Homebrew | |||
FS:NOS JACKSON BROS. 2-Section Air Variables w/pics | Homebrew |