http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Insurance/ InsureYourCar/left-lane-slowpokes-drive-you-crazy.aspx
Nice law IMHO. Lets just hope they don't get crazy with these types of laws....
ID:182135
 Dec 10 2008, 6:26 am
|
|
You get fined 100^n dollars per violation, where n is your number of previous violations -- if we catch 700 people 5 times each, that's $7,070,707,070,000.00; or enough to get us out of this financial depression!
| |
Yeah, failure to use signals is a pet peeve of mine. Around my driving paths there are a lot of three way stops(with no turn lanes), meaning that I have no clue which way oncoming traffic is planning on going.
| |
I'd be one to put some blame on the guys flying down the left lane at 80+mph in the first place (and I'm looking at you too, New York State Troopers). I'm the kind of guy who does about 65-75 down the thruway, so I'm generally in the right lane. Sometimes though, I need to pass the guy doing 55 or 60, so I move over. Then here comes mister "I like to floor it down the highway", riding my ass, like I can even get over when I'm in the process of passing someone. Then, as soon as I can move over, they put themselves in the right lane to pass me, like I'm doing something wrong.
</rant> Either way, there's definitely people in the wrong on both sides. I'd rather see the troopers pulling over speeders though than people slowing down the left lane. Too bad the troopers seem to speed faster than anyone else. | |
Airjoe wrote:
Either way, there's definitely people in the wrong on both sides. I'd rather see the troopers pulling over speeders though than people slowing down the left lane. Too bad the troopers seem to speed faster than anyone else. I've always been of the opinion that speed limits only work because they're loosely enforced. Stronger enforcement of speeding doesn't provide much of a benefit except when the speeders in question are the morons who fly by doing 90. That said, I'm totally in favor of cracking down harder on DUI and DWI offenses. It's possible to have a lot of those stack up and still not lose your license, and I'd love to see jail time for anyone who drives after their license was suspended/revoked for DUI/DWI. Lummox JR | |
Such obsolete problems. We just need smart roads and cars that drive themselves. All road issues solved.
| |
True. Kind of sad that such machinery is needed to cover up for human foolishness, though (at least as far as driving is concerned), heh.
| |
Lummox JR wrote:
Airjoe wrote: I think you're off-base there. In good weather, 90mph seems like a perfectly reasonable highway speed to me. I think that the whole idea of having a maximum speed is moronic -- if you're in the left lane, driving safely, why not go as fast as is reasonable? That said, I'm totally in favor of cracking down harder on DUI and DWI offenses. It's possible to have a lot of those stack up and still not lose your license, and I'd love to see jail time for anyone who drives after their license was suspended/revoked for DUI/DWI. I'm absolutely in agreement there. One DUI/DWI should cause your license to be revoked. I can understand the argument that it oppresses the working class since those are the folks most likely to be drinking and driving, but when the behavior is that destructive, we need to think outside the box to solve the problem. With the extra productivity of all the people who wouldn't die or be injured after being the victims of drunk driving, the state could probably afford to provide a taxi or shuttle service for inebriated citizens. (This would also create more jobs!) | |
In good weather, 90mph seems like a perfectly reasonable highway speed to me. Most people probably refer to you as "that damn speeder!" when you're driving, then =) | |
PirateHead wrote:
I think you're off-base there. In good weather, 90mph seems like a perfectly reasonable highway speed to me. I think that the whole idea of having a maximum speed is moronic -- if you're in the left lane, driving safely, why not go as fast as is reasonable? Fair enough; however I know of no well-maintained highway in these parts where traffic is light enough to make 90 MPH safe where deerstrike isn't also a possibility. With the extra productivity of all the people who wouldn't die or be injured after being the victims of drunk driving, the state could probably afford to provide a taxi or shuttle service for inebriated citizens. (This would also create more jobs!) It'd keep Mike Rowe in business too; he'd get to spend a day as a bus vomit mopper. Lummox JR | |
PirateHead wrote:
I think you're off-base there. In good weather, 90mph seems like a perfectly reasonable highway speed to me. I think that the whole idea of having a maximum speed is moronic -- if you're in the left lane, driving safely, why not go as fast as is reasonable? It has something to do with the human and vehicles reaction speed. While in some instances it would be fine to speed away (No other cars, good weather, good car condition etc...) but this isn't the case. At 90mphs the reaction to avoid a collision at 4 car paces (Twice the recomended gap between moving cars) is less than half a second. Thats bad.... Maybe try speeding less for your life's sake? | |
The result of not sleeping for far too long: Jp is confused by all the references to the "left lane", until he remembers everyone 'round here drives on the right.
In conclusion: Remember to sleep. | |
90mph seems like a perfectly reasonable highway speed to me. That's 146 km/hr. You can't legally drive that fast nearly anywhere in Australia (I think one state doesn't have an overall speed limit - IIRC, the others all have ones around 110/120, which is ~75 MPH) That said, it might be that we just lack 'highways' in the sense it's being used here. We've got a few 'highways' around Adelaide, and you certainly couldn't drive that fast on them - 110 is the speed limit there, IIRC. Haven't been driving for a while. | |
Jp wrote:
That's 146 km/hr. You can't legally drive that fast nearly anywhere in Australia Not in Israel, either. We've got some 'highways' (similarly to what you've noted, probably) but we can drive like 90 KMH there, not MPH. >_> <_< | |
From what I've heard, Europe has some pretty strict driving laws anyways, regardless of the country. o.O
As far as I know, Europe also has gasoline selling for like 10 Euros a gallon (About 14 USD) because they want people to commute using public transportation or by carpooling. | |
That seems pretty good. Air pollution is slowly choking the world, after all. If you will, both metaphorically and in actuality. :P
| |
Petrol costs $1/litre on a good day in Australia currently (I remember when that would be incredibly high - sigh). That's 2.5 USD.
Until a few months ago, it got as high as $1.5/litre. It's partially taxes, partially that the US can buy stuff for cheaper, partially transportation. | |
Jp wrote:
Petrol costs $1/litre on a good day in Australia currently (I remember when that would be incredibly high - sigh). That's 2.5 USD. In July/August, the most expensive petrol around I saw was $1.92 in a no-where town in New South Wales. The cheapest I'd seen it was in Bundaberg at $1.42. Portland, Vic was static at $1.69 for the better most of this time. Aldinga/Willunga, South Australia, just outside Adelaide, petrol was ~$1.56. Currently, petrol in Portland is ~$1.09. The better most of the fuel prices come from transportation via truck. Which is why (if you take coastal roads), petrol will get cheaper the further north you travel. | |
On the other hand, I think it'd be far more effective to ticket failure to signal more often. It'd be awesome if there were high fines for several failures to signal in a row, showing someone is clearly not just forgetting one time but never does it.
Lummox JR