smkettner
Well-known member
Never seen a minimum speed above 45 mph. Anyone else?
defiancecp said:TNleaf said:Then some people quote the "adjust your speed to the flow of traffic" suggestion, as if they don't realize the people going 80 in a 65 are 1) breaking the law 2) ALSO not following the suggestions of adjusting their speed to the drivers LEGALLY going 55-65. The suggestion goes both ways, but it never means it is okay to break the speed limit.
Yeah, I said, that, and I'll stick by it. Sorry, but I'd much rather avoid getting rear ended than avoid a ticket, and honestly, if you're going slightly below the flow of traffic your chances of getting a speeding ticket for that alone might be slightly above zero, but not much. If the speed limit is 65 and traffic is doing 80, doing 55 is downright dangerous. I'm not advocating 80, but 70-75 is enough to keep you safe from both tickets and rear-endings.
defiancecp said:TNleaf said:Then some people quote the "adjust your speed to the flow of traffic" suggestion, as if they don't realize the people going 80 in a 65 are 1) breaking the law 2) ALSO not following the suggestions of adjusting their speed to the drivers LEGALLY going 55-65. The suggestion goes both ways, but it never means it is okay to break the speed limit.
Yeah, I said, that, and I'll stick by it. Sorry, but I'd much rather avoid getting rear ended than avoid a ticket, and honestly, if you're going slightly below the flow of traffic your chances of getting a speeding ticket for that alone might be slightly above zero, but not much. If the speed limit is 65 and traffic is doing 80, doing 55 is downright dangerous. I'm not advocating 80, but 70-75 is enough to keep you safe from both tickets and rear-endings.
A quick glance at the range/speed table should tell you you're not going to make 100mi on the highway unless you drive dangerously slow compared to normal traffic speeds. If you want to go 100 miles you're going to drive 45-50mph, so drive on 45-50mph speed limit roads.ericsf said:Pfffff... You scarred me. I almost tough it was me. Only after I read the post and found it was not my color and not the same time I was on 880. But in my case, I was in the slowest lane all the time, not during rush hour and I had a excuse: I was doing my first attempt (failed) to do 100 miles on a single charge.
padamson1 said:<snip> Unless there is something physically forcing me to drive that slow (e.g. towing something), driving 15mph below the speed limit just isn't a smart thing to do.
planet4ever said:In California, at least, the speed limit on freeways is 55 mph -- for trucks. That applies even on freeways with automobile speed limits of 70 mph. There is absolutely nothing wrong, or inherently dangerous, about traveling the legal truck speed limit in any lane where trucks can legally travel, or traveling 5 mph under that legal limit, no matter what the "prevailing speed" is. The people traveling more than the speed limit are breaking the law, and they are the ones creating a dangerous situation.
Ray
planet4ever said:In California, at least, the speed limit on freeways is 55 mph -- for trucks. That applies even on freeways with automobile speed limits of 70 mph. There is absolutely nothing wrong, or inherently dangerous, about traveling the legal truck speed limit in any lane where trucks can legally travel, or traveling 5 mph under that legal limit, no matter what the "prevailing speed" is. The people traveling more than the speed limit are breaking the law, and they are the ones creating a dangerous situation.
Ray
That would only happen if every California politician voting for it really wants to get back into the private sector, and/or has a death wish. Social Security may be the 3rd rail for national politics, but a 55mph freeway limit is the same for California politics. I think it's fair to say that the national 55mph freeway limit was probably the only law that was more widely execrated and violated than Prohibition, at least out west. Even the CHP hated it (maybe not officially, but whenever I talked to officers they were pretty candid that it was ridiculous on rural interstates). What may work for dinky little states in New England just doesn't cut it here. I've already wasted enough years of my life with a 55mph freeway limit; never again. Not that we typically _drove_ 55, but 59-62 if there were CHP around, or 65-70 if we were sure we couldn't be ambushed from an overpass (CHP didn't have radar; Ca. politicians refused to give them the money for it).LEAFfan said:planet4ever said:In California, at least, the speed limit on freeways is 55 mph -- for trucks. That applies even on freeways with automobile speed limits of 70 mph. There is absolutely nothing wrong, or inherently dangerous, about traveling the legal truck speed limit in any lane where trucks can legally travel, or traveling 5 mph under that legal limit, no matter what the "prevailing speed" is. The people traveling more than the speed limit are breaking the law, and they are the ones creating a dangerous situation.
Ray
+3!
I recently saw on the news that CA was considering a 55mph speed limit on the freeways/interstates. :shock:
planet4ever said:In California, at least, the speed limit on freeways is 55 mph -- for trucks. That applies even on freeways with automobile speed limits of 70 mph. There is absolutely nothing wrong, or inherently dangerous, about traveling the legal truck speed limit in any lane where trucks can legally travel, or traveling 5 mph under that legal limit, no matter what the "prevailing speed" is. The people traveling more than the speed limit are breaking the law, and they are the ones creating a dangerous situation.
Ray
TNleaf said:planet4ever said:In California, at least, the speed limit on freeways is 55 mph -- for trucks. That applies even on freeways with automobile speed limits of 70 mph. There is absolutely nothing wrong, or inherently dangerous, about traveling the legal truck speed limit in any lane where trucks can legally travel, or traveling 5 mph under that legal limit, no matter what the "prevailing speed" is. The people traveling more than the speed limit are breaking the law, and they are the ones creating a dangerous situation.
Ray
Well put. Better than I could say it.
Well, I'm not sure it's 1) possible, 2) a good idea.padamson1 said:A quick glance at the range/speed table should tell you you're not going to make 100mi on the highway unless you drive dangerously slow compared to normal traffic speeds. If you want to go 100 miles you're going to drive 45-50mph, so drive on 45-50mph speed limit roads.
IBELEAF said:TNleaf said:If the speed limit on the interstate/highway is 65, it is 100% acceptable for someone to be in the far right lane doing 55, no matter how many cars are "impatient" behind them.
I disagree with your statement as it all depends on situation and conditions, but for the most part I wouldn't say it should be acceptable.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.425" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
RCW 46.61.425
Minimum speed regulation — Passing slow moving vehicle.
(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law: PROVIDED, That a person following a vehicle driving at less than the legal maximum speed and desiring to pass such vehicle may exceed the speed limit, subject to the provisions of RCW 46.61.120 on highways having only one lane of traffic in each direction, at only such a speed and for only such a distance as is necessary to complete the pass with a reasonable margin of safety.
(2) Whenever the secretary of transportation or local authorities within their respective jurisdictions determine on the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation that slow speeds on any part of a highway unreasonably impede the normal movement of traffic, the secretary or such local authority may determine and declare a minimum speed limit thereat which shall be effective when appropriate signs giving notice thereof are erected. No person shall drive a vehicle slower than such minimum speed limit except when necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law.
TNleaf said:defiancecp said:TNleaf said:Then some people quote the "adjust your speed to the flow of traffic" suggestion, as if they don't realize the people going 80 in a 65 are 1) breaking the law 2) ALSO not following the suggestions of adjusting their speed to the drivers LEGALLY going 55-65. The suggestion goes both ways, but it never means it is okay to break the speed limit.
Yeah, I said, that, and I'll stick by it. Sorry, but I'd much rather avoid getting rear ended than avoid a ticket, and honestly, if you're going slightly below the flow of traffic your chances of getting a speeding ticket for that alone might be slightly above zero, but not much. If the speed limit is 65 and traffic is doing 80, doing 55 is downright dangerous. I'm not advocating 80, but 70-75 is enough to keep you safe from both tickets and rear-endings.
The thing is, YOU may FEEL like you are being a safer driver by adjusting to the reckless speeders, but in fact, taking on that mentality only creates more dangerous driving conditions. No one should ever have to adjust their speed above a posted speed limit in order to be with the flow of traffic or to have a false sense of "feeling" safer.
Also, try using that one when you get pulled over for a ticket. "But officer, I was only adjusting my speed to the flow of traffic." I image it would get you the same response as "But that red sports car was driving faster than me, why didn't you pull THEM over?!?"
SmilingWhenSailing said:... In Finland again you might end up paying all between a few thousands and a few hundred thousand bucks depending on your income and speed...
Enter your email address to join: