simard@loral.UUCP (Ray Simard) (06/16/84)
Well! Now I've been enlightened! The speed limits work like this:
! ! ! !
! Speed limit ! Speed limit ! Speed limit !
! ! ! !
! Whatever ! 55 ! 55 !
! you happen ! ! !
! to like ! ! !
Right????
Let's get a point clear:
55 limit != recommendation
55 limit != option
55 limit != enforcement game
55 limit == THE LAW!!!
A few other facts: drivers who timidly drive below the limit in the
presence of the gendarmerie, or who are afraid to put the gas to it
when passing (on a two-lane road) are a small fraction of those who
choose to pay at least a little attention to the limit.
When I am driving somewhere between 55 and 65 (yes, I confess; it has
happened), and some inconsiderate moron piles up behind me, leaves nine
inches between my bumper and his, and expects me to slide over for him,
I may, purely in the interest of safety (as I would avoid any other
careless, hazardous driving menace), but I find that attitude infuriating.
Nobody has any right whatsoever to drive above the legal limit, unless
s/he has a little red light on top and a siren. If you are intent on
exceeding the limit, DO IT AT YOUR INCONVENIENCE, NOT MINE! If you are
unwilling to change lanes to accommodate your unsafe, illegal impatience,
WHY THE %&*!! DO YOU EXPECT ME TO???
--
Ray Simard
Loral Instrumentation, San Diego
{ucbvax, ittvax!dcdwest}!sdcsvax!sdccsu3!loral!simardheneghan@ihuxa.UUCP (Joe Heneghan) (06/18/84)
To begin with, let's look at where the "55 mph" law came from: 1.) "The Fuel Shortage" (the biggest farse ever) 2.) Statistics pointing at safety What has this law done? Nothing Does the majority of Americans support this law? I doubt it I have also fallen prey to hot dogs, but it's an unwritten rule of the road to leave the left lane as the fast lane. There are times when one must "put the hammer down" and I beleive that highways should facilitate this as long as it's done safely. People are going to speed no matter what and all of us should drive intelligently and realisticaly while keeping that in mind.
wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (06/18/84)
Right on Ray! TCW
jsf007@trsvax.UUCP (06/19/84)
#R:loral:-18700:trsvax:55200076:000:661 trsvax!jsf007 Jun 19 07:31:00 1984 >Nobody has any right whatsoever to drive above the legal limit, unless >s/he has a little red light on top and a siren. If you are intent on >exceeding the limit, DO IT AT YOUR INCONVENIENCE, NOT MINE! If you are >unwilling to change lanes to accommodate your unsafe, illegal impatience, >WHY THE %&*!! DO YOU EXPECT ME TO??? When I took drivers ed. in Illinois, I was told that regardless of the posted the speed limit, a driver has NO RIGHT to enforce it. In other words, if someone wants to speed, you have no right to stop him. That's why when I see someone coming up fast in my rearview mirror, I move right and let him pass. ...!trsvax!jsf007
roger@fritz.UUCP (06/19/84)
[] If we all felt the way you do about laws, America would still be a colony. Roger Webster
emma@uw-june (Joe Pfeiffer) (06/19/84)
Leaving the left lane for faster traffic is not an unwritten rule of the road. Unenforced, maybe, but not unwritten. So far as I know, the law in all states is that slower traffic keep right. This is certainly the case in Washington and Texas (in the latter state, I've heard of the self-appointed guardians of public morality being given tickets). By the way, I really think that the whole discussion of whether or not to pull over immediately has gotten 'way too warm. It's degenerated into a pretty raucous series of personal attacks, that really have no place here. One of the nice things about this group has always been that we're all friends (unlike, say, net.religion). So come on, everybody, ease up a bit. -Joe P.
2141smh@aluxe.UUCP (henning) (06/20/84)
**** **** From the keys of Steve Henning, AT&T Bell Labs, Reading, PA aluxe!2141smh In 1976 the National Highway Safety Code was changed so that it became legal for idiots to hog the left lane when they were not passing. It also became legal to pass these hogs on the right. Most states adopted some version of this code. Pennsylvania is one that did adopt it. Before '76 police would ticket the hog and the person passing on the right, which was quite effective.
mikey@trsvax.UUCP (06/20/84)
#R:loral:-18700:trsvax:55200079:000:956 trsvax!mikey Jun 20 12:14:00 1984 It is not an unwritten law of the road that the left lane is the fast lane. It is written in the uniform traffic code that was approved by congress sometime around the late sixties. This law gave the states somewhere around 10 years to get their traffic laws consistant or loose federal highway funds. Things that were covered were the order of colors on traffic lights, right turn on red, etc. One of the provisions was use of left lane in turning (for left on red lights) on one way streets and I believe there was a provision about keeping right except to pass. If it's not explicitly written, it is in one of the catch-alls, else why did a lot of states bother to post "Keep Right except to Pass" signs. Maybe states just like to spend money. I know of one person who got a ticket in PA for driving in the left lane on I-80. The specific offense on the ticket was "Illegal use of left lane". mikey 55, it's not just a good idea, it S*CKS!
royw@hound.UUCP (#R.WALTERS) (06/20/84)
If everyone would write to their state government stating opinions against the 55mph limit it may well be more constructive than wasting the verbage here on the "net". BTM
bprice@bmcg.UUCP (06/21/84)
>From: simard@loral.UUCP >Organization: Loral Instrumentation, San Diego, CA >When I am driving somewhere between 55 and 65 (yes, I confess; it has >happened), and some inconsiderate moron piles up behind me, leaves nine >inches between my bumper and his, and expects me to slide over for him, >I may, purely in the interest of safety (as I would avoid any other >careless, hazardous driving menace), but I find that attitude infuriating. > >Nobody has any right whatsoever to drive above the legal limit, unless >s/he has a little red light on top and a siren. If you are intent on >exceeding the limit, DO IT AT YOUR INCONVENIENCE, NOT MINE! If you are >unwilling to change lanes to accommodate your unsafe, illegal impatience, >WHY THE %&*!! DO YOU EXPECT ME TO??? >-- >Ray Simard >Loral Instrumentation, San Diego Ray, I don't expect you to, but the Motor Vehicle Code certainly does. I'm not going to look up the section reference for you, but any library in the state of California, and any Calif DMV office has a copy of the MVC that you can use. Most likely, you could get a CHP officer to quote it for you. The section I'm referring to is the one that is summarized on the little signs beside the freeway--the little signs that say "Slower traffic keep right." Neither the signs nor the law exempt 55-mph-drivers from the requirement to keep to the right so that faster drivers can pass. The basic philosophy of the California MVC--and probably that of other states and countries--is "keep the traffic moving, safely". As a good rule of thumb, anything that keeps the traffic moving, safely, is probably legal: anything that obstructs traffic or is otherwise hazardous, is probably illegal. Your proposed misbehavior does both--it obstructs traffic, and demonstrates an ego problem that marks you as a danger on the road. The faster driver is, indeed, driving at a speed that violates the "Energy Conservation Speed Limit" law--but that has no bearing, under the law, on your requirement to move over. He might be driving at an unsafe speed: that, too, would not excuse you from the legal duty to allow him to pass. If he is impatient, it may well be that he is being impatient because of your illegal egotrip, that your misbehavior is the cause of his impatience! Notice that this is not--and should not be taken as--legal advice. This is merely reporting what I have read and concluded from the MVC book that the DMV will gladly sell you for $2.00. It is part of the basic information and experience you, too, could get, if you cared about the world around you. -- --Bill Price uucp: {decvax!ucbvax philabs}!sdcsvax!bmcg!bprice arpa:? sdcsvax!bmcg!bprice@nosc
scw@cepu.UUCP (Steve Woods) (06/22/84)
I thought that we'd hashed this out in Feb/Mar 84. But, in many places (before
the 55 rule) the speed limit was set by clocking (usually with radar) traffic,
then the speed limit was set to a number ST ~15% drivers were faster and 85%
were >=.
Now howabout we drpo the whole an<=>TCW (these two started it last time) mess.
--
Stephen C. Woods (VA Wadsworth Med Ctr./UCLA Dept. of Neurology)
uucp: { {ihnp4, uiucdcs}!bradley, hao, trwrb, sdcsvax!bmcg}!cepu!scw
ARPA: cepu!scw@ucla-cs location: N 34 06'37" W 118 25'43"simard@loral.UUCP (06/23/84)
How did OBSERVING the limit metamorphose into ENFORCING it???
I cannot agree more that self-styled moralists driving deliberately
so as to force other drivers to alter their driving are dangerous.
I never suggested any such thing.
What I DID say is that if I am in a position in which it is
inconvenient for me to be in a lane other than the left lane, and
I am moving at or above the legal limit, I am using that lane as
it should be used, and that when I pass the car to my right, AND
traffic ahead in that lane is moving at a speed similar to mine,
only then will I move over. I will not speed up to 70-80 plus
just because some clown is a few inches behind my rear bumper.
It is HIS legal obligation to at all times maintain a safe following
distance, and if he has to wait for a few minutes until the conditions
to my right are appropriate for me to clear the way, he has to
wait, just as I do.
--
Ray Simard
Loral Instrumentation, San Diego
{ucbvax, ittvax!dcdwest}!sdcsvax!sdccsu3!loral!simardsimard@loral.UUCP (06/24/84)
>>When I am driving somewhere between 55 and 65 (yes, I confess; it has >>happened), and some inconsiderate moron piles up behind me, leaves nine >>inches between my bumper and his, and expects me to slide over for him, >>I may, purely in the interest of safety (as I would avoid any other >>careless, hazardous driving menace), but I find that attitude infuriating. >> >>Nobody has any right whatsoever to drive above the legal limit, unless >>s/he has a little red light on top and a siren. If you are intent on >>exceeding the limit, DO IT AT YOUR INCONVENIENCE, NOT MINE! If you are >>unwilling to change lanes to accommodate your unsafe, illegal impatience, >>WHY THE %&*!! DO YOU EXPECT ME TO??? >Ray, I don't expect you to, but the Motor Vehicle Code certainly does. >Most likely, you could get a CHP officer to quote it for you. The section I'm >referring to is the one that is summarized on the little signs beside the >freeway--the little signs that say "Slower traffic keep right." Neither the >signs nor the law exempt 55-mph-drivers from the requirement to keep to the >right so that faster drivers can pass. Please take another look at my original statement. There is something there to the effect that "I will move over in the interest of safety, but the attitude of the driver infuriating." Nowhere (repeat: NOWHERE) do I support deliberatly occupying a lane to restrain traffic. I am here protesting the attitudes and practices of those who ignore the speed laws and create the hazardous situation in the first place. The MVC says I have to make way; it does not say I have to like it. >The basic philosophy of the California MVC--and probably that of other states >and countries--is "keep the traffic moving, safely". Yep. Drivers insisting on doing 70+ are keeping traffic moving UNsafely. >As a good rule of thumb, >anything that keeps the traffic moving, safely, is probably legal: anything >that obstructs traffic or is otherwise hazardous, is probably illegal. Among the practices that create hazards is the following of another car at any distance that does not allow for stopping in the event of a disturbance ahead. Almost universally, drivers intending to drive at high speeds tailgate drivers ahead of them. This is probably more hazardous than any other activity mentioned so far. >The faster driver is, indeed, >driving at a speed that violates the >"Energy Conservation Speed Limit" law--but >that has no bearing, under the law, >on your requirement to move over. He might >be driving at an unsafe speed: that, too, would not excuse you from the legal >duty to allow him to pass. Where, oh where, did I suggest any differently?? For the record: in my seventeen years of driving, I have been ticketed twice: both times for doing 65 mph in the fast lane of the freeway. Each time I had the dubious privilege of hearing the local judge state (he must repeat this daily) "When will you people learn that 56 mph is against the law!!!!????" -- Ray Simard Loral Instrumentation, San Diego {ucbvax, ittvax!dcdwest}!sdcsvax!sdccsu3!loral!simard
dwex@wxlvax.UUCP (David Wexelblat) (06/25/84)
<Sacrifice to the line-eating bug I've never seen>
Oh, good God; here we go again. The greater-than-55, morality,
legality, I'm-right-you're-wrong 55 mph great debate has started again.
<<<FLAME ON>>>
Come off it, you bozos. You do this every year. I'm at school most of the
year, then when I come home and go to work for the summer, I have about 3-4
weeks to enjoy (?) net.flame. Then sometime in June some bozo starts up
this damn discussion again. Pretty soon someone else will start on smoking,
and then I'll have spend the rest of the summer pressing the 'n' key while
looking for something original to read. Why don't you morons think of a new
topic to flame about (and I don't mean wombats and mangos -- that's stupid)?
I'll tell you what - I'll give you a topic.
<<<Worthwhile flame>>>
Don't you males out there get incredibly offended by the commercials
advertising disposable douches and panty liners? I mean, you don't see ads
for Cruex ("Hey men, do your balls itch? Then buy Cruex."). Personally, I
don't care which brand of douche makes a woman feel more confident. If they
have to rely on that crap to feel "confident", then I feel sorry for them.
<<<God, I'm glad that's out of my system>>>
From the usually inactive keyboard of
David Wexelblat
(...decvax!ittvax!wxlvax!dwex)dxp@pyuxhh.UUCP (D Peak) (06/25/84)
I was watching "Carlin on Campus" over the weekend and George had a remarkable
observation(doesn't he always ?).
Have you ever noticed that anyone driving slower than you is an IDIOT,
and everyone driving faster than you is a MANIAC !
--
Dave Peak (pyuxhh!dxp)
" The bare necessities of life : Food,Clothing and a blonde ! "
- W.C. Fieldskeith@seismo.UUCP (Keith Bostic) (06/26/84)
[Chomp, chomp, chomp] Oh, well, into the fray dear friends... > Nobody has any right whatsoever to drive above the legal limit, unless > s/he has a little red light on top and a siren. Is there any documentation on this? I once had to attend this sweet little seminar held by the state of Virginia discussing my driving habits. This little twit in the front of the room kept talking about how doctors/ambulances etc. etc. had no right to speed because "it endangered lives." Well, being a rather naive young college student, po'd cause I was there at all, I asked why policemen were allowed to speed in pursuit of a speeder, since trying to apprehend said speeder only endangered more people than were previously endangered, and public safety was our greatest concern, huh, right teach? Well, maybe it stops them from killing more, dear heaven, maybe it stops them from killing more. > Yep. Drivers insisting on doing 70+ are keeping traffic moving UNsafely. Yeah, well, (to bring up a previously unmentioned point, new to all of you) a) it wasn't unsafe until very recently and b) why don't we all go 5 mph, then even more people will be saved. > Each time I had the dubious privilege of hearing the local judge state (he > must repeat this daily) "When will you people learn that 56 mph is > against the law!!!!????" Yeah, well, so is any type of sex not done on Christmas Eve for the explicit purpose of procreation. Whewwwwwww!!! Thank you all, I'm sure that I've not done the net or any of y'all any good, but *my* do I feel better. And it's that type of selfish, grasping, mercenary attitude that made America great. Hugs and kisses, Keith ARPA: keith@seismo UUCP: seismo!keith
davew@shark.UUCP (06/26/84)
Some people seem to think that the 55 mph speed limit was ordained in heaven and handed down by the god's. In fact it was a compromise law hammered out in the Congress in an attempt to save fuel during the early part of the fuel embargo of 1973. Where was a group that was trying to get the national speed limit set at 45-50 mph, while another group wanted either 60 or no changes at all. 55 was chosen as the best compromise. It was then decided that in order to get states to change their speed limits the feds would withhold highway funds from those who didn't comply (so much for states rights, etc.). The best way to change the law is to write your congressman and let your feelings be known. It is only a law and as such can be changed when it is felt that it is politically expediant to do so.
ron@brl-vgr.UUCP (06/26/84)
In Baltimore County, MD the official rule for emergency vehicles is that they are not to exceed five miles over the speed limit when responding in an emergency. -Ron
review@drutx.UUCP (Millham) (06/27/84)
[Honest officer... The throttle really was stuck] I've had quite a few responses to my previous article about raising the speed limit. I found the Popular Mechanics that it was in. (reprinted without permission, Popular Mechanics, May 1984) Detroit Listening Post (pg. 16) DOUBLE-NICKEL ATTACK: Nine states will consider bills to weaken or repeal the 55-mph federally imposed speed limit, risking a cutback in federal highway funds. California, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, South Dakota, and Wyoming feel speed limits are a state's rights function. Also in the same column was this bit: SEAT BELT LAWS: Building on the success of laws passed in 42 states and Washington, D.C., requiring child safety seats in cars, lawmakers in 19 states will consider mandatory seat belt use laws for adults in 1984, according to the Highway Users Federation. The states are Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, and Washington. Also I heard this morning on the radio something about a new law passed congress requiring all states to have a 21 drinking age or risk loosing their federal highway funds. Did I hear right? Was this passed, or is it up for vote? Brian Millham AT & T Information Systems Labs Denver, Co. ...!drutx!review
wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (06/27/84)
Hooray for Wexblat. My sentiments exactly concerning the plethora of ads for feminine products such as douches, panty liners, and such. I'm sorry ladies, but I just find them offensive. I know its a natural function, but so is taking a crap. We are not subjected to graphic descriptions on how the latest brand of toilet paper should be used. There is nothing more in bad taste than to show these ads during the prime time hours. They always seem to come on just as I am getting ready to enjoy a snack. My wife gets up and leaves the room when they come on she finds them so objectionable. I say trash the bad taste ads. I'll bet this gets the fingers flameing out there, eh Wexblat? T. C. Wheeler
neal@denelcor.UUCP (06/28/84)
************************************************************************** Ah, yes. Reminds me of my favorite bumper sticker: +-----------------------------------------------+ | 55 mph | | It's not just an asinine idea | | It's an asinine LAW | +-----------------------------------------------+ Regards, Neal Weidenhofer "The law is for protection Denelcor, Inc. of the people" <hao|csu-cs|brl-bmd>!denelcor!neal
dfi@ihuxf.UUCP (Dan Iuster) (06/28/84)
I think I'd rather stick to the 55mph flame (while nothing
better is available). Leave the panty liners alone, or at least
don't bring them up in this net group. I would hate to unsubscribe
to this one too.
--
~~~~~~~
/ \ Dan F. Iuster
/ - o \ ihnp4!ihuxf!dfi
( ) | ( ) AT&T Bell Laboratories
\ \_/ / ih 6n-427, x2994
\_______/
"Have a nice Day"ron@brl-vgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (06/29/84)
Just because they were designed to accomodate higher rates of speed doesn't mean they aren't safer at lower speeds. This is like saying that my car that gets tremendous gas mileage, I don't need to conserve by slowing down. The argument about 55 is not that higher speeds are unsafe, it's just that it is less safe. -Ron
ctc@ccivax.UUCP (Claude Creswell ) (06/29/84)
And how many remember the Kansas Turnpike. Designed for 80 MPH and operated at 80 MPH for many years.
zz1fk@sdccsu3.UUCP (07/02/84)
After having driven to L.A. and back (from San Diego) three times in the past week, I have figured out the optimal solution. Why don't we make it legal to run anybody going under 70 mph off the road. That way, all the incompetent drivers that cause accidents anyway will crash & die, as well as all the fools that insist on driving after they get wasted. This fits in perfectly with Darwin's thory of evolution also. After one generation we will have a society of perfect drivers. Maybe, on the other hand, we should get rid of all cars and just ride bicycles. (My employer hates cars and wouldn't care about this anyway.) I hope I don't need this --> :-) -- ihnp4--\ decvax--\ "One Martini please, akgua----\ shaken, not stirred." dcdwest---\ fritzz the Zebra ucbvax-------- sdcsvax -- sdccsu3 -- zz1fk
phil@amd70.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (07/04/84)
I just want to say that driving faster than 55 mph is not necessarily
unsafe, most interstates (especially in California) were designed for
vehicles traveling at a top rate of 70 mph.
(sometimes I like to beat dead horses, ok?)
--
Phil Ngai (408) 982-6825 {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra,intelca}!amd70!phildsmith@proper.UUCP (David Smith) (08/03/84)
(A sacrifice to the mythical line eater) "Think of it as evolution in action" David Smith