Fast lanes for faster drivers/ If you can drive fast safely, shouldn't you be allowed

[burnM]

In Canada we have a law concerning our highways that states that you must drive in the right hand lane at all times. The only time you should be using the left lane is to pass. The trouble with this law is that the police do not seem to know of it.
I was driving down the highway in the right hand lane during the very early morning hours. The speed limit is 100km/h and I was doing 115 or so. It didn't seem too reckless, as I was the only car on the road. I ended up being pulled over. The cop said that he only pulled me over not because I was speeding, but that I was speeding in the wrong lane. What? Wrong lane? He said that if I was going to drive that fast on an empty highway that I should be in the fast lane. He did not give me a ticket, he just stopped me to advise me of the safe lane to be in...I just agreed with him at the time so as not to get a ticket for ticking him off.
My point is this...If everyone followed this law, I think it would be a lot easier to get from point A to point B. There wouldn't be as many tie-ups on our roads because the people that insist on staying in the left wouldn't be clogging up the faster moving traffic as was pointed out in a previous comment. Also, we would always have a safe "out" if there was an emergency stop situation(shoulder or left lane)
Now, I realise that this doesn't help any in a town or city, but it could help immensely on our long stretches of highway.
I do agree however, that speed limits could be raised slightly with further explanation of the laws, better driving education and more frequent testing.
As with everything else, someone has to pay for the programs. But I'd rather pay from my pocket than to pay with lives.

[jdrumstik]

With new technology being considered for caddilacs, where the car senses a collison and brakes, cars should have a distance sensor, along with a spedometer, while on the highway, you have a max distance, like 8 secound stop or something, so as long as you have your 8 secound distance you can drive as fast as you tires are rated for, like in Europe.

[-Davo]

there is no such thing as safe speeding.

[RocketDSM]

Gosh I wish I had been in this from the beginning. I'm going to work backwards since that seems easiest...

Davo - yes there is safe speeding. The two terms have nothing to do with each other. Speeding only refers to your speed versus that dictated by law. The law is written to the lowest common denominator so that everyone stays "safe". Therefore, more than a few cars will end up being held back from their potential while others are almost at the point of being pushed when driving the speed limit. I can guarentee you that my Eclipse with JIC FLT-A2 suspension, and R-compound tires is just as safe at 70 as it is at 65. Can you say the same about Suzy Soccer-Mom's base model 1976 Ford Pinto? Not even close. The arguments that modern cars are safer and can safely handle higher speeds (i.e. Speeding) is correct.

jdrumstik - I personally do not like the idea of any computer telling me I can't do something because of some pre-engineered safety level that a desk jockey came up with. I don't know the last time I had 8 seconds of travel time between me and the next car on my local highways. We have WAY too many cars here for that to have a chance in the minds of the performance oriented.

burnM - California has a similar law, but again it doesn't get enforced. It even gets treated the same. I've been given royal ass chewings for speeding in the second lane to the left rather than the left lane. HUH? Whatever...there are tons of extra traffic laws that don't get enforced simply because officers don't want to take the time. My father's best friend is a local traffic cop. I became very good friends with Concord PD Officer Thorpe when he was the regular enforcer around my high school. I became good friends with the Concord Traffic Court judge. This all happens when you get 21 tickets in 14 months, by the way. They all said the same thing...there is such a myriad of traffic laws that the officers only memorize a few and enforce those strictly. The rest of the time they try to keep the traffic flow safe.

op012503 - Those roads do exist here in California. There is a highway in the Irvine/Costa Mesa area that is a toll road and has very few on or off ramps. Last I heard it wasn't patrolled by CHP. It was designed for people that needed to get from one end to the other quickly and didn't need to stop in between. Thereby relieving traffic in the city areas. Wish I remembered the number, but I don't live there - my aunt does.

Mike(M3) - yes, you are correct. 10mph does make a significant increaese in the damage caused in an accident. Your speculation at having a reserved lane for "better drivers" is dead on.

Jlink2004 - Please learn better English before you post like that again. That was one of the hardest posts I've found to read. Your point that 10mph will NOT get you there much faster is also dead on. Keep in mind that adding 10mph to any speed becomes less significant the faster the original speed was. The time saved going from 30 to 40 is more significant than the time saved going from 90 to 100. So at what point is that 10mph considered useless? That has to be a personal decision, but should be tempered with safety in mind. The speed difference in lanes is a REALLY good point. Plus, what about the a-holes that speed up when you try to pass them? Now you've got a real problem on your hands...

JoeWagon - This only applies to California, but I wanted to put it out. The "Exhibition of Speed" citation is only applicable in the presence of another vehicle without an accompanying cite of offense. There are codes for chirping tires, burnouts, etc. If you are simply doing 120mph down the road, they can't use that one. Get a lawyer and fight it. If they use "Reckless Driving" or "Reckless Endangerment" then you are hosed. The "Exhibition of Speed" does require visual or aural proof to accompany it.

vsiev - The DMV would never do that. People don't have to pay to take the tests, only to get the actual license. If you make it harder to pass, then less people get licenses and the DMV loses money. When was the last time DMV cut their prices? I don't remember it happening. I agree with the theory, it just isn't going to happen on a mass scale. A tiered license has merit, but lots of problems to go with it. Some have been mentioned here.

84and85bird - Your point on distraction is special to me. I consider myself a better than competent driver. I got into an accident one day because I was messing with my radio presets right after leaving a stop signal on a four lane boulevard. Three cars ahead of me, someone hit their brakes for a dumb reason (a bum was sitting in the median with a dog). So everyone piled on the brakes...except my dumb ass. Who could expect that? We had all just left an intersection, working at getting back up to normal speed for the road (50mph). I had a median on the left and a brick of traffic to the right. I was dumb, I messed up. Fact remains that an accident was caused.

To the rest that want the idea of higher speeds once you and car are tested - Oh my freaking god! How the heck can the highway patrols hope to regulate that? What is to say that your car hasn't deteriorated to the point that it wouldn't perform at the same level? How often do you actually check those A-arm bushings again? If you have the flu, how is anyone else to know that you aren't performing at 100%? No way that would ever work. You expect the government to have a system where an officer has to suspect you, pull you over, verify your information, then let you go with nothing done IF you are correct? No, I can't see anything like that being implemented. I've thought about how great it would be to have a special "good driver" license and be allowed to speed. However, reality is that it can't happen because enforcement isn't feasible.

The closest that I can see to a reasonable variation to the speed limit laws is one that was brought up in the magazine "Sport Compact Car". In the Oct 99 issue Dave Coleman wrote another riot of a Technobabble. In it the idea of MOMENTUM limits was brought up. If the article is no longer available from SCC I'll be willing to transcribe it. The laugh is enough to make it worth it. But in seriousness, he has a point.

If speed limits really are to keep us and everyone around us safe, then lets start at the beginning. What are we keeping ourselves safe from? Damage due to an accident. What can influence this damage? Momentum and Matter Density. Well, we don't want cars to be less dense, or we get hurt more. So instead let's lower Momentum. With density not changing, our choices are lmited. Hence the speed limit. But wait, we said momentum, not speed. What is the difference, mass. So why not make a system based on the GVW of cars as they come off the factory production line. You could even have a system for re-weighing vehicles after production. What would it require, a scale? Every state has highway scales. At a minimum that is something. Make a few classes of vehicles in weight catergories. Make plates like Japan does where there are symbols and numbers to classify vehicles on sight. Now you have an enforceable system. If an officer sees a Ford Excursion doing 80mph, it is pretty obvious that it would be speeding. I think we can all agree that 7700lbs at 80mph is dangerous. I see an enforceable option that protects the public safety and allows those with capable vehicles to enjoy their spirited driving.

I realize this has been drastically long. Hope you all made it through all right. I think this conversatin can continue for many decades still.

[MeChAniK NiK]

we can dream but its never gonna happen, as nice as it sounds.
to reduce the number of highway fatalities i call for a bumper lane for drunk drivers !

[drewh4386]

RocketDSM has done what alot of people needed....correcting

[Boss San]

Well I was going to reply but it seems ROCKETDSM already posted all my answers. Thanks for saving me the typing time.

Here, here, on the bumper lane. That would be great, even to just sit by and watch.

[Cro]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that speed limits were reduced in the 70s to reduce gas consumption.

[RocketDSM]

That was one of the many arguements used. It has become conventional wisdom that current vehicles easily exceed the mileage standards of the 70s oil crisis. Also, the efficiency has been increased. Leading to the conclusion that the arguements for using speed limits as mileage controls is long past. In the more recent times, the Federal Government has instituted what is called CAFE standards. These state that a manufacturer's entire lineup must have an average mileage of XX depending on the class of vehicles included. I'm not a laywer so I don't know all the details, but that is the general gist of things. One of the items SEMA fights on a regular basis are the large increases of the CAFE which the EPA constantly tries for in Congress. The problem being that if average mileage is forced up even just a few MPG, which cars are hit? All the trucks and most of the sports cars. Why should this segment of the industry be singled out? The ideal behind raising the CAFE standard is not what most of us are against. Just the way in which it would be implemented.

[Boss San]

America needs to take a tip from Germany about how cars should be driven in the way they are designed for(in there case, going reeaaalll fast). Sure there are still the commuters. The VW Lupo Tdi gets like 70+mpg and still go about 115mph:22yikes:, and we don't get the chance to utilize it. And sure every other car class is still there, but they still are taught to be driven to their most efficient potential. Germans are the masters at tightassed efficiency.

[op012503]

is it so hard to keep the racing on the track?

[RocketDSM]

This has nothing to do with track vs street or racing vs street.

This has to do with the fact that some of us (namely most everyone in California) prefers high speed transportation. I'm not talking about rivaling another vehicle without legal repercussion. I am talking about simply getting from Point A to Point B faster. When I was in college a lot of us students started looking at wastes of time in life. One that I keyed on was transit time. Why do we have to put up with transit time? Do you accomplish anything while getting from Point A to Point B? Generally not. Transit time is a waste of life to me. The less time I have to spend on a congested highway the better. If my vehicle, and the corresponding roadway, can maintain safe speeds in excess of 90mph, then that will save me time compared to the current 65mph speed limit. So long as it is safe, why shouldn't I be allowed to save roughly 25% of my time?

Racing has nothing to do with this particular discussion.

[Boss San]

The fact alone that people don't know how to change their oil or even the simple practice of putting gas in your car should be enough to convice the way people use motorvehicles in America is compleatly up it's ass. In the frame of mind where people don't know and they don't want to know is a very dangerous combo when it comes to driving. They want to put there feet up, read their paper, and put their makeup on while talking on the phone as the dvd player blares out reruns of "Friends."
The oil companies don't want us to drive fast, efficient vehicles. If a car can go 155mph and still can get 25-30mpg, that's going to be cheaper for the driver. Rather than any SUV that sits in traffic and gets 8-10mpg. They get people to their destination in both cases which do you think is the better take. Cars were invented in the first place to get us from point a to point b faster and more efficiently than walking or horseback [even if the first one's that could only go 5mph, they took the work off the horse that could also go do something more productive (like working at the glue factory)]
Then there's the whole police state of the country that binds us from doing anything but be hearded around like giant mettalic sheep. I'll save this for the next post though, In need to calm myself before I call forth my dogs.


Take the bus people and leave the roads to drivers, not passengers behind the thing that makes the car turns!

[RocketDSM]

One of my favorite ways of putting things, similar to the way yours, is this:

Most people don't drive their cars. They ride their cars. Driving a car means keeping positive control of the vehicle and making it do the best it can to accomplish your goal, usually getting from Point A to Point B. Riding in a car is doing six other things while futzing down the road oblivious to everything around you and the vehicle content to allow the car to dictate to you what will happen and when.

Too many people think that the later is safer. I disagree. Yes, you see the horrific accidents of people that caused accidents at 110mph on the news. What you don't see if the vast number of problems caused by people that were going the speed limit, but didn't have the capacity to drive competently. Here in San Diego, CA we recently had a rash of senior drivers doing really dumb things. I'm not picking on seniors by any means, but it proves this point. They weren't speeding. But due to mental failures they hit the wrong pedals, or didn't stop mashing the gas and people were hurt and property damaged. Had nothing to do with speed, just driver competency. That most annoying of vehicular phenomona known as Traffic would be almost eradicated if people learned how to merge, exit and change lanes properly. Again, has nothing to do with speed. Those that can't seem to understand the logic to the traffic systems in use should be limited to public transportation so the rest of us can get on with our lives.

[Boss San]

The insurance corporations don't help with how people drive either, same goes for drunk driving b.s.
The insurance companies tells the u.s. that, in every case it can be proven that it was something or someone else's fault, not the person driving. Nobody wants to hold any responsibility when something bad happens. (It's the American way after all...) This is why there are so many laws in effect about "traffic saftey" it's not there to keep us safe and under control. It's to put blame on someone else after you ram somebody from behind, killing the people in the car in front of you, then suing the family you hit for spilling your coffee and burning your leg. It's like walking down the street like a badass swinging your arms and saying "If you get in my way and end up getting hit it's your own fault." Some serious ego problems are apparent.