Fuel Efficiency or Common Courtesy?

here is what i do. i simply turn my blinker on to the right and pull over into
the break down area if possible.. all in a coast. good drivers behind me know
to pass by safely and i simply look like a tourist.

simple!

 

As usual, you dismiss others' opinions as meaningless when they don't correspond with yours. And then you present your own opinion as fact. Introspection should be your friend.

No study on this subject has found your statement here to be true. If the speed limit (or speed of traffic) is 55, it is more dangerous to drive 65 than it is to drive 45. Besides being obvious, there are many peer-reviewed studies that prove it.

You might *feel* that driving slower is as dangerous as driving faster. But that doesn't make it so.

 

There is NOTHING illegal about doing 35 in a 45, or other similar situations here in MN. What is illegal is impeding traffic. If you are doing 35 in a 45 and not affecting anyone else (e.g. you are NOT impeding traffic), then you are doing nothing wrong. If you are doing 35 in a 45 and a chain of cars is building up behind you, then you would be impeding traffic. In general, I think officers are more concerned about people driving above the speed limit, rather than below it. Now, if someone were doing 2mph hour in a 45, then I can see an officer having a problem with that.

We also have highways here with posted minimum and maximum speeds. I forget the exact numbers, but it's around 45min/70max, 40min/60 max etc....

These "laws" are quite open to interpretation and having to prove whether one was actually impeding traffic or not. Has anyone here ever actually been pulled over for impeding traffic, or know anyone who was? If anyone is likely to get pulled over for driving slower, a Prius owner ought to be towards the top of the list.

But to get back to the original topic of this thread, I do not normally speed up if I am 1) saving money, and 2) the person behind me is rude and/or driving dangerously (e.g. tailgating etc....). This is the type of person that would do this if I was going faster or slower. These folks are pretty easy to spot and you can often see them doing it to everyone else behind you and you can predict what they are going to do behind you once they've passed everyone else and caught up to you. And of course 3) going to have to go over the speed limit.

 

Hi Chris -

Do they post minimum speed limits where you are? I've seen maybe two min speed limits in my life. How does one determine what that min might be if it isn't posted, I wonder?

 

Of course, if you read the next paragraph:

By that statement, if there is no posted minimum speed limit then that implies that the DOT has determined that traveling at slow speeds on that piece of road does not "impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic" and so the first part does not apply. In my experience the first part is mostly used to give officers a bit more probable cause to pull over drunks or harass teenagers cruising.

Stating that driving 5-10 mph under the speed limit is illegal is simply ridiculous. In pretty much any place where there is a posted minimum its in the range of 10-30mph under the speed limit. If there isn't one posted, there is no minimum within reason. Since most states also have an NEV law now, that is confirmation that it is ok to drive 10 under even in zones down to 35, as NEVs are restricted to 25 mph and allowed in zones up to 35mph. Most states also allow (require actually) bicycles to travel in traffic lanes in all speed zones other than Interstates. If one class vehicle is allowed to travel 15 mph on a given road without special markings or equipment, I do not believe the law can preclude other vehicles from doing the same.

If someone were advocating driving 15mph in a 55, I would agree. That would be potentially dangerous and probably get you pulled over. But we're talking about someone driving 35-40 in a 45mph. There's nothing to stop an officer from pulling you over, but there's also not much grounds for making the ticket stick.

Getting back to the original point, I almost always choose courtesy over consumption up to the speed limit (and sometimes over). If you piss off the drivers around you, they're going to waste far more gas and create far more pollution than you are offsetting.

Rob

 

If I don't want to drive there at the speed limit I'll take a bus.
Of course that is how I like to drive and I don't want to impose my driving style on others. It's up to you. There are many more things to consider than the speed limit, traffic density, number of lanes, speed of other traffic, oportunities to pass, etc.

 

I really wish this type of enforcement happened more frequently. I have no problem with the speed in which someone chooses to drive. I feel that we owe it to each other to try (within reason) to stay to the right as much as possible. Pass someone, then pull right back over. If everyone tried to follow this technique it truly would in the long run reduce congestion and get everyone where they were going faster. Heck, even if you're doing 80 in a 65, pull back over so the guy doing 82 doesn't have to get on the brakes. It makes everyone happier and is a heck of a lot safer than having the guy that's going to speed anyway zip in and out of traffic at speed. In addition it reduces the amount of slowing down that people have to do while driving at speed... this chain reaction of brake lights is felt miles down the road and causes much of the slow down behind you.


Mike

 

In several places I've driven in Germany and Italy, getting back into the right lane after passing is a matter of life and death. People do NOT screw around with the "fast" lane unless they truly are the fastest one. You pass somebody going 100mph, and suddenly there's a motorcycle getting big in your mirror in a HURRY. He's going around you one way or the other - you might as well be out of his way!

 

Ok, most of you all here sound like you are courteous with this issue. I see no problem with going the speed limit, but, when you start going below it is not only an issue with courtesy but safety.

The slow prius blocking the road stigma was the main reason i nearly didnt purchace mine last week. The general public (myself included) see no benifit in clogging up roadways so you can get an extra 2 mpg, these cars already get phenomonal mileage, and im happy enough with 40+mpg to not worry about the change.

I wont excuse unsafe driving like tailgating by the rest of us drivers either, but, when you knowingly hold up traffic for no reason, you are asking for a road rage incident.

 

Yes ! I've ALWAYS pulled over to right lane no matter how fast I go, on divided, restricted access highways. (But not on 40 MPH streets; no need.) Only exceptions are when I'm keeping up with traffic and there's lots of it or I am actively passing (even if slowly.)

Here in Ontario, some group protested 62 MPH (100 KMH) speed limits by getting 4 cars for 4 lanes abreast and driving north from Toronto for 60 miles at precisely the speed limit. This was their way of showing 100 KMH limit makes no sense.

Traffic was of course backed up for miles and they were charged with impeding traffic.

Doing exactly the limit is no defense against impeding traffic. But you IMO can only impede traffic by driving WAY to slow on highway or stealing the left lane, esp if done actively and purposely.

 

I do 65-70 on the freeway, and 2 weekends ago when going to LA on the I5 north i was doing 70 and had people passing me. Only time i drive under the speed limit is if nobody else is on the road, like on Sunday night doing 55-60 at 11PM

 

This has nothing to do with my "feelings" ... I'm simply pointing out the rules of the road, which happen to be enforced by your local police department and the justice system. If you don't like the rules as they stand, you're more than welcome to talk to your congressman to try to get the laws changed.

Until then, I suggest you take a trip to your local driving school and bone up on how to drive.

 

There are many factors but I tend to disagree with your statements. IMO, it is NOT obvious.

YES, it IS safer to slam into a wall at 45 MPH than 65 MPH. VERY few highway accidents involve a collision with a stationary object however, most are with other vehicles traveling in same direction.

Therefore, there is much to be said safety wise for all vehicles traveling at the same speed or within a narrow band.

Therefore, you may be safer traveling at the prevailing speed.

I guarantee you, it is VERY unsafe for you and others if you drive 20 MPH on a 60-70 MPH highway. MUCH more unsafe than driving at 70 MPH, assuming you and your vehicle are competent to drive at that speed.

If the prevailing speed is 65 MPH and 99.9% of traffic is going from 60-70, IMO you are much safer at 65 MPH than at 45 MPH.

If you want to drive 45 and be safer, take another route. That's what I am doing; a bit longer commute but better gas mileage, and possibly safer. ("Possibly" because studies have shown that highway miles are safest, assuming no traffic jams. Most dangerous part of highway driving is entering and exiting, when speed ranges between vehicles differ the most.)

 

Doah!
I meant THE speed limit, both min and max(as the same/only number posted).

Now that I think about it, is the intention of the law based on a maximum?
You can travel up to(your preference how slow as long as your not impeding traffic) the posted limit, just not over it?

 

God it's hysterical when someone throws out "the rules" that they clearly are making up in their head as they go along! I love the internet.

 

You think I'm making this up? Head down to your local police dept and ask them if it's against the law for you to travel under the speed limit, and hold up traffic...

get back to me and let me know what they say...

 

Yeah, he shoots a bit wide of the mark, doesn't he? But hey. He has the law on his side, so logic, reason and reality don't really matter.

But that's just my opinion. When I want facts, I'll check with my local police department.

 

Indeed. We're all talking about the MAXIMUM speed limit as if it is the MINIMUM. Even Mr. Law and antlers here seems to think that nobody can legally drive below the posted MAXIMUM speed.

Huh?

So apparently (I'll have to check with the police) if I come up to a school zone marked 25mph, and there are cars behind me that wish to go faster - and I decide to go 20mph to avoid running over the little buggers who have just been let out - apparently I'll be hauled off to jail.

Ah, but that's different right? Safety of the kids! But heck, the guy behind me knows that he's safe through there at 35. I should get a ticket for holding him up. :der:

 

Let me guess! My friendly officer will tell me that it is *more* illegal to drive below the max speed limit than above it, right? Confusing when they call it a maximum speed limit though... And while I have been ticketed - and know of countless others who have been ticketed - for exceeding the limit (even by just 5mph!), I have yet to hear of anybody recieving a ticket for driving too slow. I'm sure it has happened. I'd hazzard a guess that it doesn't happen too often though. Are those police guys asleep at the stick!? Those slow drivers could be out there killing people. We need more speed to keep everybody safe!

Ah well. What you imply here just makes logical sense since it is as dangerous to drive slower as it is to drive faster - because you said so - we already covered that.

Ok, that was fun. I need to go ride my bicycle somewhere at WELL below the posted speed limit.