Lamo Leaf driver doing 50 mph in 2nd lane in heavy traffic

[LEAFfan]

Today one of the security guards at my workplace asked about the Leaf. He was thinking about buying one, had actually test driven one at a dealer. It turned out that his commute was about 60 miles one way, with no L2 charging available at work. I suggested that a Prius would be a better fit for him.

I would never recommend to someone to buy a Prius instead of a LEAF simply because a Prius uses gas (with all the other negatives) and will cost more to own/lease. What I would have told the security guard is to ask at his workplace to use a 120V outlet since there are no L2s. Also, there may be a Nissan dealer on his route so he could use the DCQC in a few months...probably by the time his LEAF would come in they'll be in all the Nissan dealers. Mark Perry said a few weeks back that in a couple months, Nissan dealers will have the under $10K DCQC for us to use either free or a nominal charge.

 

[Stoaty]

I would never recommend to someone to buy a Prius instead of a LEAF simply because a Prius uses gas (with all the other negatives) and will cost more to own/lease. What I would have told the security guard is to ask at his workplace to use a 120V outlet since there are no L2s. Also, there may be a Nissan dealer on his route so he could use the DCQC in a few months...probably by the time his LEAF would come in they'll be in all the Nissan dealers.

Unfortunately, there is no 120 volt outlet available at my workplace. I don't think there are any Nissan dealers that would be convenient for him. You have to know your audience, and what is within their means and level of motivation. I believe it would not work well for him, so I would be doing him a disservice to recommend the Leaf in spite of these large obstacles.

 

[videographer]

"Slow is a relative term." That's just it. If I'm in the left lane going 75 in a 65 and I see someone coming up behind me at 85, if I can get over safely, I get over. My job is not to police the highway, my job is to get out of the way.

It may feel that way, but legally speaking it's 100% backwards. If someone rear-ends you, on any road, for any reason, they are at fault. It is the overtaking car's responsibility to avoid you, not the other way around. Your plan just rewards speeders and tailgaters.

 

[ztanos]

"Slow is a relative term." That's just it. If I'm in the left lane going 75 in a 65 and I see someone coming up behind me at 85, if I can get over safely, I get over. My job is not to police the highway, my job is to get out of the way.

It may feel that way, but legally speaking it's 100% backwards. If someone rear-ends you, on any road, for any reason, they are at fault. It is the overtaking car's responsibility to avoid you, not the other way around. Your plan just rewards speeders and tailgaters.

As mentioned before, it is "legally" both. The person in front is "legally" supposed to move over, and the person coming up from the rear is "legally" not supposed to rear-end the person in front. Now to me, this is common sense on both aspects. Get out of the way and the person behind has no reason to tail-gate. Stay there and it just pisses both people off. From the front perspective you get "Look at this idiot tail-gating me, why won't he slow down." From the back perspective you get "Look at this a-hole not moving over and impeding the flow of traffic, sure wish he would move over." Either way being inconsiderate is just plain rude.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

so we basically have a thread of 105 posts of people justifying their reasons for breaking the law, correct?

the laws;

1) speeding
2) remaining right except to pass



ok, now that is cleared up.

 

[Nubo]

"Slow is a relative term." That's just it. If I'm in the left lane going 75 in a 65 and I see someone coming up behind me at 85, if I can get over safely, I get over. My job is not to police the highway, my job is to get out of the way.

It may feel that way, but legally speaking it's 100% backwards. If someone rear-ends you, on any road, for any reason, they are at fault. It is the overtaking car's responsibility to avoid you, not the other way around. Your plan just rewards speeders and tailgaters.

As mentioned before, it is "legally" both. The person in front is "legally" supposed to move over, and the person coming up from the rear is "legally" not supposed to rear-end the person in front. Now to me, this is common sense on both aspects. Get out of the way and the person behind has no reason to tail-gate. Stay there and it just pisses both people off. From the front perspective you get "Look at this idiot tail-gating me, why won't he slow down." From the back perspective you get "Look at this a-hole not moving over and impeding the flow of traffic, sure wish he would move over." Either way being inconsiderate is just plain rude.

Agreed, they are both being rude. One is being dangerous and using their vehicle as a weapon; potentially a deadly one. That is a very big difference to me!

So putting both drivers on the same moral footing is definitely not justified, imho.

 

[ztanos]

Agreed, they are both being rude. One is being dangerous and using their vehicle as a weapon; potentially a deadly one. That is a very big difference to me!

So putting both drivers on the same moral footing is definitely not justified, imho.

I have passed cars doing 41 in the far left lane when the speed limit is 70. Even going 70 that 41 mph car is deadly and shouldn't be in the left lane. I consider the slower car more deadly than the car going 80 in the 70 speed zone.

 

[Nubo]

Agreed, they are both being rude. One is being dangerous and using their vehicle as a weapon; potentially a deadly one. That is a very big difference to me!

So putting both drivers on the same moral footing is definitely not justified, imho.

I have passed cars doing 41 in the far left lane when the speed limit is 70. Even going 70 that 41 mph car is deadly and shouldn't be in the left lane. I consider the slower car more deadly than the car going 80 in the 70 speed zone.

We can discuss the .01% of edge-cases but that doesn't shed much light on far more typical goings-on in the fast lane. The typical slowpoke vs. tailgater encounter is not the extreme of someone traveling at 41 mph in a 70 mph zone. It's much more like someone driving the speed limit or slightly above/below the speed limit, and someone wanting to drive faster who is on their tail. Not on their tail as in being temporarily surprised by their speed, but on their tail deliberately and for a sustained period to bully them out of the way.

You can't use the rare 41 mph guy to justify the people who tailgate and bully, as a matter of course, anyone who doesn't travel at their personal preferred speed. There is simply no justification for it. The person driving at the limit in the left lane, and the tailgating speeder are nowhere near the same distance from the center of the moral see-saw. One is behaving inconsiderately. The other is behaving sociopathically.

 

[ztanos]

Agreed, they are both being rude. One is being dangerous and using their vehicle as a weapon; potentially a deadly one. That is a very big difference to me!

So putting both drivers on the same moral footing is definitely not justified, imho.

I have passed cars doing 41 in the far left lane when the speed limit is 70. Even going 70 that 41 mph car is deadly and shouldn't be in the left lane. I consider the slower car more deadly than the car going 80 in the 70 speed zone.

We can discuss the .01% of edge-cases but that doesn't shed much light on far more typical goings-on in the fast lane. The typical slowpoke vs. tailgater encounter is not the extreme of someone traveling at 41 mph in a 70 mph zone. It's much more like someone driving the speed limit or slightly above/below the speed limit, and someone wanting to drive faster who is on their tail. Not on their tail as in being temporarily surprised by their speed, but on their tail deliberately and for a sustained period to bully them out of the way.

You can't use the rare 41 mph guy to justify the people who tailgate and bully, as a matter of course, anyone who doesn't travel at their personal preferred speed. There is simply no justification for it. The person driving at the limit in the left lane, and the tailgating speeder are nowhere near the same distance from the center of the moral see-saw. One is behaving inconsiderately. The other is behaving sociopathically.

True, they are both rude, as aforementioned. It isn't really an issue for me, I don't stay in the left lane for "sustained" periods of time. I move over to pass the 1 or 2 cars that are going slower than me and get right back to the right. Nobody tail-gates me(except those .01% cases) because they see I am making an effort. If you ignore your chances and don't move when you can, people will get impatient.

 

[prberg]

First off, I'm not an EV/HEV/CNG basher, I'm on my 2nd Prius and keep an eye on the PHEV/EV state of affairs.

I saw a pretty bad thing yesterday at 5:30pm, 880 South in SF Bay Area, rush hour traffic. I just hopped on the freeway to find a nice Black Leaf in the 2nd lane from right. I don't think it had dealer plates. IOW, not on its first trip home.

I haven't seen another Leaf on freeway driving like that and hope I don't again. It was one of the worst examples of freeway driving I can recall.

Wow... that's the worst example of freeway drive you can recall? You must not get out much. I've see people cut in front of somebody so quickly they had to slam on their brakes and almost hit the person. I think going slow is not that bad. They weren't in the left lane right And during rush hour? I'd be lucky if I could go 50. Maybe in the middle of the night and you came across this slow car it could be more of a hazard.

While I think that is a bit slow, it sounds like you are overreacting quite a bit. Jeez... worry about something that really matters. There are fast and slow drivers who drive all kinds of cars and trucks.

 

[Stoaty]

Wow... that's the worst example of freeway drive you can recall? You must not get out much. I've see people cut in front of somebody so quickly they had to slam on their brakes and almost hit the person. I think going slow is not that bad. They weren't in the left lane right And during rush hour? I'd be lucky if I could go 50.

Yes, there are a lot of rude (and some dangerous) people on the road. I sometimes have people impatiently pull out from behind me, race past me in the next lane, and then pull in front of me while I am going 50 MPH in the right hand lane of the freeway... and 100-200 yards up ahead the cars are going 30 MPH. It doesn't make any sense.

 

[Cheezmo]

Group A
People who like to drive fast can be jerks.
People who like to drive fast can be courteous.

Group B
People who like to drive slow can be jerks.
People who like to drive slow can be courteous.

You can't choose which group someone else is in.
You can choose what kind of person you are within your group.

 

[Nubo]

Group A
People who like to drive fast can be jerks.
People who like to drive fast can be courteous.

Group B
People who like to drive slow can be jerks.
People who like to drive slow can be courteous.

You can't choose which group someone else is in.
You can choose what kind of person you are within your group.

Well put!

 

[ztanos]

Group A
People who like to drive fast can be jerks.
People who like to drive fast can be courteous.

Group B
People who like to drive slow can be jerks.
People who like to drive slow can be courteous.

You can't choose which group someone else is in.
You can choose what kind of person you are within your group.

Agreed and just make sure that you are aware of surroundings. Paying attention is 9/10 of a victory the majority of the time.

 

[rmay635703]

Agreed, they are both being rude. One is being dangerous and using their vehicle as a weapon; potentially a deadly one. That is a very big difference to me!

So putting both drivers on the same moral footing is definitely not justified, imho.

I have passed cars doing 41 in the far left lane when the speed limit is 70. Even going 70 that 41 mph car is deadly and shouldn't be in the left lane. I consider the slower car more deadly than the car going 80 in the 70 speed zone.

That actually isn't accurate, the likelyhood of death in an accident doubles for every 10mph faster you drive, so if a car doing 80 hit one doing 70mph this is by itself is mathematically equivalent to a car doing 55mph hitting a car doing 30mph.

Then add to that the increased deadliness of the aftermath that occurs after the (2) high speed cars hit together and inevitably have to somehow come to a stop and you actually have a much more deadly situation.

AKA if both drivers crash at 70mph & 80mph, both will probably die during the fallout after collision, if a 70mph car hits a 41mph car one driver will likely die but the other will mainly be injured but not dead depending on how he gets hit (guess who wins?).

The stats on these type of issues are quite clear, you don't want any type of accident when traveling above 55mph. If both drivers are nascar ready they might be able to control their slow down but you really can't expect that our of an average driver and the results are usually bad.

That said, the likelihood of an accident is actually a wash between large speed differentials and slight speed differentials, the reason is the 41mph car is MUCH more likely to get your attention while you are wanking and texting than the 70mph car going slightly slower than you are (which you probably won't notice).

When I am driving slowly on a mostly unpopulated 4 lane road, I tend to start the flashers if I see someone behind who is distracted and high, if I feel threatened I either move off the road or stomp on it. I have avoided at least 3 car pileups and 2 head ons because I kept my speed down on 4 lane 65mph roads, if I would have been driving 65mph or speeding I would likely not be writing this today.

55 stay alive.

 

[LEAFfan]

Agreed, they are both being rude. One is being dangerous and using their vehicle as a weapon; potentially a deadly one. That is a very big difference to me!

So putting both drivers on the same moral footing is definitely not justified, imho.

I have passed cars doing 41 in the far left lane when the speed limit is 70. Even going 70 that 41 mph car is deadly and shouldn't be in the left lane. I consider the slower car more deadly than the car going 80 in the 70 speed zone.

That actually isn't accurate, the likelyhood of death in an accident doubles for every 10mph faster you drive, so if a car doing 80 hit one doing 70mph this is by itself is mathematically equivalent to a car doing 55mph hitting a car doing 30mph.

Then add to that the increased deadliness of the aftermath that occurs after the (2) high speed cars hit together and inevitably have to somehow come to a stop and you actually have a much more deadly situation.

AKA if both drivers crash at 70mph & 80mph, both will probably die during the fallout after collision, if a 70mph car hits a 41mph car one driver will likely die but the other will mainly be injured but not dead depending on how he gets hit (guess who wins?).

The stats on these type of issues are quite clear, you don't want any type of accident when traveling above 55mph. If both drivers are nascar ready they might be able to control their slow down but you really can't expect that our of an average driver and the results are usually bad.

That said, the likelihood of an accident is actually a wash between large speed differentials and slight speed differentials, the reason is the 41mph car is MUCH more likely to get your attention while you are wanking and texting than the 70mph car going slightly slower than you are (which you probably won't notice).

When I am driving slowly on a mostly unpopulated 4 lane road, I tend to start the flashers if I see someone behind who is distracted and high, if I feel threatened I either move off the road or stomp on it. I have avoided at least 3 car pileups and 2 head ons because I kept my speed down on 4 lane 65mph roads, if I would have been driving 65mph or speeding I would likely not be writing this today.

55 stay alive.

+1! I used to drive 55 in the right lane with my Honda GX (55mpg), but with the LEAF, mostly 60-65.

 

[ztanos]

Agreed, they are both being rude. One is being dangerous and using their vehicle as a weapon; potentially a deadly one. That is a very big difference to me!

So putting both drivers on the same moral footing is definitely not justified, imho.

I have passed cars doing 41 in the far left lane when the speed limit is 70. Even going 70 that 41 mph car is deadly and shouldn't be in the left lane. I consider the slower car more deadly than the car going 80 in the 70 speed zone.

That actually isn't accurate, the likelyhood of death in an accident doubles for every 10mph faster you drive, so if a car doing 80 hit one doing 70mph this is by itself is mathematically equivalent to a car doing 55mph hitting a car doing 30mph.

Then add to that the increased deadliness of the aftermath that occurs after the (2) high speed cars hit together and inevitably have to somehow come to a stop and you actually have a much more deadly situation.

AKA if both drivers crash at 70mph & 80mph, both will probably die during the fallout after collision, if a 70mph car hits a 41mph car one driver will likely die but the other will mainly be injured but not dead depending on how he gets hit (guess who wins?).

The stats on these type of issues are quite clear, you don't want any type of accident when traveling above 55mph. If both drivers are nascar ready they might be able to control their slow down but you really can't expect that our of an average driver and the results are usually bad.

That said, the likelihood of an accident is actually a wash between large speed differentials and slight speed differentials, the reason is the 41mph car is MUCH more likely to get your attention while you are wanking and texting than the 70mph car going slightly slower than you are (which you probably won't notice).

When I am driving slowly on a mostly unpopulated 4 lane road, I tend to start the flashers if I see someone behind who is distracted and high, if I feel threatened I either move off the road or stomp on it. I have avoided at least 3 car pileups and 2 head ons because I kept my speed down on 4 lane 65mph roads, if I would have been driving 65mph or speeding I would likely not be writing this today.

55 stay alive

Going fast doesn't mean you are reckless. Your numbers are very convincing. But in the real world people may not rear-end the 40mph car, but they sure have to dodge quickly into other lanes of traffic which could take out more than just the 1 driver, just like in your 70 and 80 scenario. Real world driving never turns out the way it should on paper. Either wreck could kill both drivers. I'm just saying that I would rather be in an accident going 70 with a car that is much closer to the speed I am going than in an accident going 70 with a car that is a wall (going 40).

 

[dwatson]

As a cyclist, I laugh at this. Motorists are scofflaws in general and threads like this are everywhere on car forums. Yet bring up bikes and the hate flows.

1- It is absolutely legal to drive the speed limit and below.
2- On some highways there is a minimum speed of 40 or sometimes 50 mph. I have never seen higher than that.
3- Almost every speed demon gets mad at slower drivers all the damn time. No matter what lane they are in.

In almost all cases it is the faster driver putting people at risk. The temptation is to classify fast drivers as a force of nature and say everyone must conform to them. Additionally if you aren't looking far enough ahead that you can react to changing road conditions at speed then you are the danger. If you can't react in time then you are driving too fast.

 

[abasile]

As a cyclist, I laugh at this. Motorists are scofflaws in general and threads like this are everywhere on car forums. Yet bring up bikes and the hate flows.

Yes, as a fellow cyclist (I actually enjoy riding my bike more than driving my LEAF, which says a lot), I agree that some motorists loathe anyone cycling or driving more slowly than they.

But in general, don't cast stones at motorists for being scofflaws. On your bicycle, do you come to a complete stop at every stop sign? Or signal every turn? That said, following traffic laws designed for cars doesn't always make sense on a bike, especially since bikes don't trigger traffic signal sensors. I digress...

 

[smkettner]

Well I was driving 55 in the slow lane in my F150 just to get 14 mpg average combined.
I am sure the world is relieved that now I go 60 in my Leaf.

BTW if I am so slow then why am I contantly on the brakes? :roll: :shock: