Does doing exactly the speed limit in town make me a jerk?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jim Prower
  • 110 comments
  • 21,901 views
dave_sz
It's still the child unless you can prove you stopped in time and the tailgater did in fact cause you to hit the kid. He'll get a ticket for failing to avoid a collision but unless proven otherwise, it's most likely ruled an accident.
Click to expand...
I didn't know the hypothetical also assumed I was arguing the case in a court of law. Because see, just because the law says one thing, or can be interpreted to say it due to a lack of evidence, does not make it correct. Of course, depending on where this happened and a few other details, it could be possible that the law says pedestrians have the right of way, which immediately absolves the child of all blame.

But as the case was a hypothetical situation in which the only variable that caused the accident was the behavior of the tailgater, I can easily say that all deaths and injuries are his fault, as they would have been avoided otherwise. While the legally defined blame may not be the same, it doesn't change the fact that the tailgater's behavior is directly at fault. No accident would have occurred had he not been behaving in that way.
 
Famine
What a wholly bizarre thing to say. I don't recall advocating that you immediately dive out of their way regardless of any other factors.
Click to expand...

Just like you I do not like people putting words in my mouth that I did not say. I did not say you advocated anything.

You could read a reference to your statement and that is the case, I was triggered by your statement.

To go back to people with traumas from being hit before, they might have trouble putting the right priority on "any other factors" and them putting the priority on pulling over because under pressure is generally not leading to safe driving.

Other jurisdiction could copy the French example of talking to people that tailgate (as educational measure), I discourage people going to the periferique there are enough people there already.

The best seems that we are all a bit more conscious about the others in traffic and leave place for all (to go faster or to stay slow as they like).
 
Vince_Fiero
Just like you I do not like people putting words in my mouth that I did not say. I did not say you advocated anything.
Click to expand...

And, you'll note, I didn't say that you did.
 
Rotary Junkie
Exactly.



Won't disagree with that second bit at all, but for the most part it's not how much power you use or have, but for how long you apply it. You might have 400hp, but if you only use all of it for the time it takes to go from 30 to 70 (such as getting on the freeway) it's not unsafe to do so (given there's nobody in front of you who isn't already up to target speed).

Although I have been speed matched getting on the freeway multiple times because people are complete arseholes; accelerating to prevent someone from merging into the slow lane to the point you're undertaking everyone else is not exactly a good idea. Especially when they were doing the speed limit coming off the curved on-ramp. Then you let off when they do. >_>
Click to expand...

The freeway is hard to get on for me. 5500 pounds, 145 horsepower, 265 ft/lbs off idle, doesn't help with merging, and my 30-60 time is... about half a mile if not more. It's all about knowing your vehicle
 
That raises an interesting point about anticipation, actually.

Does it make me a jerk if a light further ahead goes red and I back off the gas, then cruise through just as it turns green?

Only most people seem to prefer braking at the last minute, sitting at the lights doing nothing, and then screaming off again.

I can't say for definite that I've ever held anyone up doing it, but knowing what most drivers are like I suspect it'd annoy the more impatient ones, even though not needing to get back up to speed from rest will actually speed up their journey time...
 
I do that all the time, "saves gas," saves my nearly gone brakes, and saves me a long time getting back up to speed. I don't see a problem with it. The light is red, why race towards it?
 
mustangGT90210
When I got hit back when I was on my learners permit, it scared the retarded driving out of me before I ever got a chance to do it, which is without a doubt a good thing. It left me with a much higher respect for vehicles, and I drive my truck like so. More space between me and the guy in front of me than necessary, always being aware of my surroundings, and overall not being stupid. (aside from the "brake check" as I see how that is seen as irresponsible and stupid)

The Mustang is my fathers, I was 3 months into my permit when I got hit, he was sitting in the passenger seat and to this day tells me it wasn't my fault and there was nothing I could do about it. And he's anal about that car.

On the insurance front, it's about 1300 per year just to keep me on the policy, and it's 700 a year for insurance on the truck. I'm the primary driver, and it's in my dads name even though I paid, for lower insurance rates. I pay the 700 on the truck, and thank god my parents cover the 1300, otherwise I wouldn't be driving.

To cover gas and all, I have 2 jobs, 1 day a week at a horse farm and 16 hours at a bamboo nursery per week. And I'm 17
Click to expand...

That's ridiculously cheap in my eyes. The first year in the UK if your male even with say something weedy like a 1.0 litre VW Polo costs £1200-£1500...

Has the job helped bring down the insurance costs maybe?

Rotary Junkie
We do?

News to me. I know I'm not the absolute best driver in the world, but I've got less than no problem controlling the vehicle and adjusting for conditions.
Click to expand...

Really? I struggle to think of many people that haven't had crashes and then there's the really careless ones with multiple crashes.
 
crooky369
That's ridiculously cheap in my eyes. The first year in the UK if your male even with say something weedy like a 1.0 litre VW Polo costs £1200-£1500...
Click to expand...
The part I bolded likely has a lot to do with the cost difference, as is often the case.
 
crooky369
That's ridiculously cheap in my eyes. The first year in the UK if your male even with say something weedy like a 1.0 litre VW Polo costs £1200-£1500...

Has the job helped bring down the insurance costs maybe?
Click to expand...
The job hasn't helped it, it's just that the UK has far more expensive insurance. Hate to see what they'd do with a 4.9L pickup lol


Really? I struggle to think of many people that haven't had crashes and then there's the really careless ones with multiple crashes.
Click to expand...

Define crash though. Like totalled, or just fender bender? I know the UK is far more built up and everything is a lot tighther than in the USA. There's maybe 2-3 of my friends who've been in even fender benders
 
crooky369
Really? I struggle to think of many people that haven't had crashes and then there's the really careless ones with multiple crashes.
Click to expand...
The only friends I have that have crashed their cars is the one who rolled his Lumina, which I personally still think that was a result of the car more than the driver (I was with him when it happened); and the one who had his Probe sideswiped, which was the result of a drunk hitting him.
 
Didn't read the whole thread.

I almost never speed on urban roads, but the freeway is another matter. At most I do 5 over the limit on city streets.

But, if you are going the speed limit, and occupying the left lane, then you ARE breaking the law. Most states require you to keep right and pass left.

There isn't a single state that says "keep right unless you are doing the speed limit, in which case its cool."

If someone is tailgating you, you really should observe which lane you are in and what your speed is relative to traffic. As someone who usually drives a little over the speed limit, I rarely have someone tailgating me. The few times I do, I change lanes, they get on to wherever they are going so urgently, and I filter back.
 
mustangGT90210
The job hasn't helped it, it's just that the UK has far more expensive insurance. Hate to see what they'd do with a 4.9L pickup lol
Click to expand...

You'd be surprised. I often run through quotes for a bit of fun, and the results are sometimes surprising. As a base mark, I pay around £250 a year to insure my Miata. I could insure an '80s Porsche 911 for about £600, yet an early '00s Subaru Impreza WRX of less value would be nearer £1000. And yet, I could insure a late 90s Mercedes C43 AMG (V8 with about 350bhp) for about £700. Ditto a Clio V6, which is the same physical shape as death. An Accord Type R like that which Famine drives would set me back about £400, yet an EK9 Civic Type R would be as much as £750.

It's all about risk. Some cars are simply much higher risk than others. If I ran a pickup like yours over here I could probably insure it for not much more than the Miata, if not less if I found a specialist policy.

Any more thoughts from anyone about my question? Anyone else time their driving so that they go through lights on green rather than waiting at them for ages?
 
Yep. Anticipation is one of the key weapons in the arsenal of active safety - besides which you save loads more petrol by decelerating progressively towards the lights than by trying to do all your stopping at once and then TLGPing away.

Insurance is a funny old business. You'd think that by changing one variable - the car - you'll have a quantitative assessment of the risk associated with that car. But nooooo, you change the entire scope of the quote.

Take the Civic Type-R/Accord Type-R assessment above. Same essential car, same essential engine, same power, pretty much as fast as each other, but the CTR would cost hfs almost twice as much to insure as the ATR. Why? Well, he's in two different groups - it's not just the risk associated with the car (otherwise the Clio V6 would be uninsurable), but the risk associated with someone of his age, gender, employment type and postcode driving that car. Perhaps 30-something males in ATRs don't crash as often, or expensively, as 30-something males in CTRs - or, in my case, being classed as "unemployed" is a brilliant one, because unemployed people don't drive Accord Type-Rs, so they don't crash them very often...

Mental, isn't it?
 
homeforsummer
Anyone else time their driving so that they go through lights on green rather than waiting at them for ages?
Click to expand...

I do exactly the same thing, I always slow steadily and earlier to junctions rather then blaze at them and brake later and harder if there's any chance I'll have to stop be it a red light or the traffics right of way. I can't see a good reason to brake late for a red light, it's much smoother to slow down gently or coast up to them and there's a better chance you won't have to stop at all. I find that little things like that just make a journey smoother for yourself and ultimately you get places quicker overall as you'll go through some greens without stopping compared to having to get going from a standstill when it goes green.
 
Ah, so there are a few then. It's amazing how few people on the roads seem to anticipate traffic lights though...

Famine
Take the Civic Type-R/Accord Type-R assessment above. Same essential car, same essential engine, same power, pretty much as fast as each other, but the CTR would cost hfs almost twice as much to insure as the ATR.
Click to expand...

Indeed, the gulf is even greater, because the CTR I mentioned is one of the earlier 1.6 versions. Admittedly those ones are all imports, and being imported has an affect on insurance too. Though not really on MX5s, given that when I was comparing prices there was absolutely no difference between insuring an import compared to a UK car.
 
homeforsummer
You'd be surprised. I often run through quotes for a bit of fun, and the results are sometimes surprising. As a base mark, I pay around £250 a year to insure my Miata. I could insure an '80s Porsche 911 for about £600, yet an early '00s Subaru Impreza WRX of less value would be nearer £1000. And yet, I could insure a late 90s Mercedes C43 AMG (V8 with about 350bhp) for about £700. Ditto a Clio V6, which is the same physical shape as death. An Accord Type R like that which Famine drives would set me back about £400, yet an EK9 Civic Type R would be as much as £750.

It's all about risk. Some cars are simply much higher risk than others. If I ran a pickup like yours over here I could probably insure it for not much more than the Miata, if not less if I found a specialist policy.

Any more thoughts from anyone about my question? Anyone else time their driving so that they go through lights on green rather than waiting at them for ages?
Click to expand...

I did a lot of that when I was searching. A brand spanking new 2009 Corvette was cheaper for a then 16 year old driver with only an accident on his history, than a civic, or anything I could afford. Hell, civics were more to insure than fox body mustangs, and SN95s, Camaros, and my truck is even with it. Insurance is just weird
 
Here in Northern Ireland drivers are restricted to 45 mph for 1 year after passing their test, this greatly annoys drivers behind me on motorways.

Really it's a law which needs changed, surely a new driver is more dangerous as a moving chicane than being able to drive at the same speed as the rest of the traffic?
 
I'd agree, though it's surprising that if new drivers are restricted that much on motorways, that they aren't banned from them altogether. Doing so would be stupid of course, and the safest thing would be motorway training as part of the driving lessons and test, and then allow new drivers to go to the full speed limit.

Motorways are statistically the safest roads, after all.

At the very least, a new driver on the motorway should have maybe a 60mph limit - slower than the rest of the traffic but quick enough to pass trucks and caravans. I often travel around 65mph on the motorway and manage to not get in the way of anything, so 60mph would seem fair. Certainly better than 45mph which is pretty dangerous.
 
No, because in most cases, that's what everyone else is doing. Before I could drive, my lead-footed father told me not to lose patience with anyone doing the speed limit...there might be a reason, and not everyone is in a hurry to out-drag the next guy.

There's certain sections of road where I travel the speed limit (or maybe even 5 mph under), because I know I'm not holding anyone else up and I know I have to stop for a red light (or prepare for a green light that will be ready just in time for me). And yet, there's other sections I go a bit faster, because I know that if I don't...I'll be halted by a red light. I'm not talking about excessive speeds, but accelerating a tad quicker so as not to waste fuel.

I can't stand the folks that go a steady 10-15 mph under the limit no apparent reason, while in the left lane...we all aren't anticipating the changing lights of the christmas tree, but there's a big difference in accelerating onto a 50-mph road rather than a 25-mph street.
 
Didn't read the whole thread, seems to have gone off topic anyway. BUt I'll throw my 2 cents in.


You're not breaking the law so you are right. Annoying...possibly, depends on driving conditions and the road. I only speed when I am on roads that I know and even then it's 5-10 mph at most. Out of town I adhere to the speed limit exactly since I do not know how the cops are in the area. I have 0 tickets in 4 years of daily driving a 98 Trans Am so the system seems to be working. 👍
 
Back