Traffic Gaps

[GetUrban]

Anyone notice there seem to more and more drivers who leave 3-4 car lengths between themselves and the car in front while stopped at stop lights? What's up with that? This annoys me, that's all.

[Brad]

Its because everyone it texting and not paying attention to where the cars in front of them are... Its very self correcting when you get to the next light and they leave a -1/2 car length gap.

I don't mind larger gaps, what I hate is when slow traffic drives in the left lane!

[GetUrban]

Yeah, left-lane hogs are even worse....that seems to be happening much more often now too. I hope that's not because of texting too.

If everyone left 3-4 car lengths in-between, there would be no room left.

[S33]

Yeah, left-lane hogs are even worse....that seems to be happening much more often now too. I hope that's not because of texting too.

If everyone left 3-4 car lengths in-between, there would be no room left.

Yep, annoys the heck out of me. Traffic would move so much More smoothly if people payed attention.

[Big E]

[ShawJ]

You never know when something can jump out of the trunk. So.. you should leave some room.

[GetUrban]

More like this e

[/img]

[StreetsOfOmaha]

I don't mind larger gaps, what I hate is when slow traffic drives in the left lane!

By "slow" do you mean "driving at or below the speed limit"?

And anyway, that's the freeway mentality applied to local streets; i.e., there is no "fast lane" on city streets.

[S33]

I'm guessing Brad was referring to freeway traffic, and in that case, I absolutely think it's rude for someone to leisurely cruise in that lane with traffic backed up from behind. Whether freeway traffic in the left lane is speeding or not, most states who don't have their heads up their |expletive|, have traffic laws designating that as a passing lane. Of course it's up to officer discretion, but, overwhelmingly, more often than not, officers will ticket the person cruising in the "passing lane" before they will ticket drivers going with the flow of traffic, regardless of the speed.

Whether you are against cars, freeways, and parking lots, it is rude as |expletive| to hold up traffic in the left hand freeway lanes. Compare it to a bus driver parked at a bus stop waiting to finish his butterfinger.

[almighty_tuna]

And anyway, that's the freeway mentality applied to local streets; i.e., there is no "fast lane" on city streets.

BS. If someone's out for a Sunday drive, stay to the right and let the rest of traffic get where they're going.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

I'm guessing Brad was referring to freeway traffic, and in that case, I absolutely think it's rude for someone to leisurely cruise in that lane with traffic backed up from behind. Whether freeway traffic in the left lane is speeding or not, most states who don't have their heads up their |expletive|, have traffic laws designating that as a passing lane. Of course it's up to officer discretion, but, overwhelmingly, more often than not, officers will ticket the person cruising in the "passing lane" before they will ticket drivers going with the flow of traffic, regardless of the speed.

Whether you are against cars, freeways, and parking lots, it is rude as |expletive| to hold up traffic in the left hand freeway lanes. Compare it to a bus driver parked at a bus stop waiting to finish his butterfinger.

You're speaking completely in terms of informal perceived roadway courtesy, not the rule of law. And yes, there is a HUGE issue with police mis-information and mis-training on the topic; my guess is that these are the same people who speed and get angry when people prevent them from speeding. It's completely |expletive| up the way we as a culture think about these issues. In this way, we quite literally suffer from a sort of cultural retardation.

I have every right to drive a reasonable speed at or below the speed limit in any lane that I please---and you are also free to pass me in any lane that you please provided that you do it in a safe and legal manner, which, I'm sorry to break it to you and most others, means NOT speeding. Yes, that's correct. It is NEVER legal to speed. The idea being that it should never be necessary for you to pass a car that is driving at the speed limit.

And yes, we're talking about local streets, not freeways (which I'm pretty sure Brad was talking about, too). On a freeway, every single thing I just stated still applies, except that one can't drive any SLOWER than the minimum speed, which is usually if not always 40 mph.

You have every right to get pi$$ed off, but that doesn't mean the law's on your side.

[S33]

Streets, I'm only talking about basic, common courtesy. Not advocating people make a mockery of the speed limit, or putting anyone's lives in danger, for that matter. Just saying, there are unwritten rules to the road, and people should follow them.

It's no different than swiping a seat at the bar from a nice looking female. She gets the seat. You read way too far into things.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

Just saying, there are unwritten rules to the road, and people should follow them.

Actually, there aren't. Plain and simple. It's a fallacy and it's an attitude that people use to justify breaking the law. Quite frankly, it's total bull |expletive|, and the sooner people realize that, the better off our society--or what's left of it--will be.

[S33]

Just saying, there are unwritten rules to the road, and people should follow them.

Actually, there aren't. Plain and simple. It's a fallacy and it's an attitude that people use to justify breaking the law. Quite frankly, it's total bull |expletive|, and the sooner people realize that, the better off our society--or what's left of it--will be.

There are those of us who take law verbatim, regardless of origin or intent, and there are those of us who interpret laws as they fit society, and work best with society, and say |expletive| those a-holes who wrote the laws. Yes, I think that the faster drivers move left in freeways, while the slower, more unsure drivers, go right - toward the exits. It works, and always has.

[Bosco55David]

And yes, there is a HUGE issue with police mis-information and mis-training on the topic

Really? When did you go to the police academy?

and you are also free to pass me in any lane that you please provided that you do it in a safe and legal manner,

Actually, that is incorrect for the most part. Generally speaking, it is illegal in almost every jurisdiction to pass on the right.

[GetUrban]

You're speaking completely in terms of informal perceived roadway courtesy, not the rule of law.

I have every right to drive a reasonable speed at or below the speed limit in any lane that I please---and you are also free to pass me in any lane that you please provided that you do it in a safe and legal manner, which, I'm sorry to break it to you and most others, means NOT speeding. Yes, that's correct. It is NEVER legal to speed. The idea being that it should never be necessary for you to pass a car that is driving at the speed limit.

And yes, we're talking about local streets, not freeways (which I'm pretty sure Brad was talking about, too). On a freeway, every single thing I just stated still applies, except that one can't drive any SLOWER than the minimum speed, which is usually if not always 40 mph.

Then you need to go back and read the Nebraska Driver's Manual....

From Section 4 Rules of the road:

4C-2 How To Pass
♦ Decide if it is necessary to pass.
♦ Stay at least 2 seconds behind the vehicle ahead.
♦ Signal and check all around your vehicle before passing.
♦ Increase speed and pull into the passing lane.
♦ Signal and move back into the right lane when the front of the vehicle
being passed or vehicles’s headlights are seen in the rear view mirror.
♦ Resume speed.

5A-2 Driving on the Interstate
♦ Maintain steady speed. Keep pace with other traffic.
♦ Obey posted speed limits.
♦ Slower traffic keep to the right.
♦ Be alert at entrance ramps for vehicles entering the interstate. If safe, signal
and move left to allow them a smooth, safe entry.
♦ Avoid unnecessary lane changing. Stay in the right lane unless overtaking
and passing another vehicle.
♦ Signal lane changes.
♦ Pass with caution. Check your blind spots when making lane changes.
♦ If you miss your exit, go on to the next exit. Backing up or using emergency
crossover points on the interstate is prohibited.
♦ Never cross the median of the interstate highway.
♦ Minimum speed on the interstate is 40 MPH.


You're right about not speeding and the 40mph minimum, but there is more to it than that.

Even if others are speeding and want to pass, that does not give you the right to stay in the left lane to block them or just because you feel like it!

[StreetsOfOmaha]

Even if others are speeding and want to pass, that does not give you the right to stay in the left lane to block them or just because you feel like it!

Actually, it totally does. It's called 'right of way,' and it's the same principle of law that allows any operator of a vehicle (including bicycles) to operate on the roads.

What you've just posted from the driver's manual are instructions in road "courtesy" and more of a 'how-to' guide to passing. For instance, it is not a law to check your blind spot. That's a recommendation for not getting yourself into an unsafe situation. It's not a law.

Furthermore, it is assumed under ALL of those circumstances that people are to obey the posted speed limit. It even says it explicitly in the interstate passing section.

The point is, there is no "passing law," and certainly there is no such thing as a fast lane or passing lane on local streets. If you choose to speed past someone in the right lane because they are going too slowly (i.e. obeying the speed limit) in the left lane, that is your choice to break the law and to drive in an unsafe manner.

Bosco, it has nothing to do with going to the police academy. I see police officers breaking the same traffic laws most average drivers do, at times when it is not necessary to do so. Believe me, there are many efforts under way at this very second to educate and train law enforcement officers so that they have the knowledge they need to enforce the rules of the road.

[jessep28]

http://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/sta ... e=60-6,131

(2) Upon all roadways, any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.

[GetUrban]

What you've just posted from the driver's manual are instructions in road "courtesy" and more of a 'how-to' guide to passing. For instance, it is not a law to check your blind spot. That's a recommendation for not getting yourself into an unsafe situation. It's not a law.

No, what I posted are the Rules of the Road, which are enforceable as a "traffic infraction" if they are disobeyed.

60-481. Driving rules; publication; copy to licensee.

The director pursuant to law shall publish a synopsis or summary of the statutory driving rules of this state, together with such cautionary and advisory comments as may to him or her seem fit, and shall deliver a copy of such synopsis or summary without charge with each operator's license. Such rules shall contain a summary of the state's laws for operating a motor vehicle to avoid arrest.

Source:Laws 1937, c. 141, § 21, p. 517; C.S.Supp.,1941, § 60-426; R.S.1943, § 60-440; R.S.1943, (1978), § 60-440; Laws 1981, LB 76, § 4; R.S.1943, (1988), § 60-406.08; Laws 1989, LB 285, § 31.

and....

60-682. Violations; traffic infraction.

Unless otherwise declared in the Nebraska Rules of the Road with respect to particular offenses, a violation of any provision of the rules shall constitute a traffic infraction.

Source:Laws 1973, LB 45, § 102; R.S.1943, (1988), § 39-6,102; Laws 1993, LB 370, § 178.


Cross References
General penalty, see section 60-689.
Operator's license, assessment of points, revocation, see section 60-4,182 et seq.

Annotations
Prosecution of a traffic infraction is a misdemeanor criminal proceeding authorizing a non-lawyer associate judge of the county court to preside in any such proceeding. Miller v. Peterson, 208 Neb. 658, 305 N.W.2d 364 (1981).


Prosecution for a traffic infraction is a criminal action. State v. Knoles, 199 Neb. 211, 256 N.W.2d 873 (1977).


Held, contributory negligence no defense where defendant's negligence was sole proximate cause of intersection accident. Bonnes v. Olson, 197 Neb. 309, 248 N.W.2d 756 (1976).

I think your logic is severely skewed by your disdain for the current majority-preferred form of transportation in this country.....which is OK if that's what you want to fight to change.

[TitosBuritoBarn]

In discussing freeway laws and speed limits, Streets, you're wrong...

State "Keep Right" Laws

http://www.mit.edu/~jfc/right.html

Only six states have no restriction on slow vehicles in the left lane. Ten limit the left lane for passing only.

Also note:

"The Uniform Vehicle Code states:

Upon all roadways any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic ...

Note that this law refers to the "normal" speed of traffic, not the "legal" speed of traffic. The 60 MPH driver in a 55 MPH zone where everybody else is going 65 MPH must move right. Contrast Alaska's rule, 13 AAC 002.50, allowing vehicles driving at the speed limit to use the left lane, and Colorado rev. stat. 42-4-1103, prohibiting blocking the "normal and reasonable" movement of traffic.

(Enforcement for failing to keep right while at or above the speed limit is variable. Toledo police have ticketed truck drivers for driving at the 60 MPH speed limit in the left lane. Police looking for criminal activity are aware of the "keep right" law and will use it as an excuse to stop a suspicious car. On the other hand, a New York judge announced that he would not convict drivers for blocking speeding traffic, People v. Ilieveski, 175 Misc. 2d 943; 670 N.Y.S.2d 1004 (Monroe County N.Y. 1998), and most police find speeding easier and more profitable to enforce.)"

State Traffic and Speed Laws

http://www.mit.edu/~jfc/laws.html

Types Of Speed Limits

Absolute

Most states have adopted the speed limit language from the Uniform Vehicle Code, which sets absolute limits. That means exceeding the speed limit is illegal per se regardless of whether or not it is safe. These states are marked " A ". (In case you don't want to click the link, there are 39 of them)

However...

Prima Facie

In Rhode Island, Texas, and Utah driving faster than the speed limit is prima facie evidence of unreasonable speed. One can argue in court that one was exceeding the speed limit but should not be convicted because the speed was safe (when they accept this argument, judges will likely want to see evidence beyond a defendant's claim that he was driving safely). These states are marked " P ".

Mixed

In several other states, there is a state absolute maximum speed and only limits below that are prima facie limits. State maximum speeds are 85 in Arizona, 75 in Colorado, 65 in New Hampshire and on freeways in California (unless posted 70) and Ohio, and 55 in Connecticut (unless posted 65), on two lane roads in California (unless posted higher), and on non-freeways in Ohio. Ohio freeway speed limits are absolute even if below 55. Oregon speed limits are absolute on Interstates and in cities and prima facie elsewhere. In Minnesota only municipal limits are absolute. In Michigan municipal limits are prima facie and state highway limits are absolute. Massachusetts limits are prima facie except on roads that belong to the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority or the Metropolitan District Commission. There are 10 states with mixed prima facie/absolute laws.

(In summation, there are 13 states where, in certain situations, you can get your speeding charge dropped completely if there is proof the speeding was safe)

Official Tolerance

Some states have laws providing that points are not assessed for minor speeding. On freeways in the daytime the tolerance is 5 MPH in Colorado, Florida, Michigan, Missouri, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, North Dakota, and Wyoming; 10 MPH in Kansas, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Montana, and West Virginia; and 15 MPH in Georgia. South Dakota doesn't assess points for speeding. Minnesota (171.12(6)) and Arizona do not have points for speeding in some 55 zones. Ohio law prohibit points for speeding 10 miles per hour or less over a limit of 55 or higher, or 5 miles per hour or less over a speed limit below 55. Connecticut doesn't assess points for speeding less than 85 MPH if one pleads guilty by mail, but may revoke a license based on multiple convictions or guilty pleas notwithstanding the point total. Nevada doesn't assess points for speeding 5 or less over a 60-70 MPH limit in the daytime and outside of a county with a population greater than 100,000. New Mexico doesn't assess points for speeding 75 or less outside a residential zone, for speeding 5 or less over any limit, or for speeding in rural areas. Except in a work zone or school zone Pennsylvania doesn't allow radar or laser tickets for less than 6 over the limit (or less than 11 over a limit less than 55 MPH), and only State Police can use radar or laser. Except by the State Patrol, radar and VASCAR can't be used in Georgia to write a ticket for 10 or less over the limit outside a residential area or school zone.

Minnesota, Montana and Washington allow drivers to exceed the speed limit while passing on two lane roads.

The Federal Highway Administration recommends that police tolerance never be less than 5 MPH. See 66 FR 29855 (``setting and enforcing rational speed limits'').

[StreetsOfOmaha]

Thank you Titos, Jessep, and GetUrban for providing examples of the type of bunk that is on the books concerning traffic laws.

This type of language is not uncommon:

any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing

And who defines "normal"? Most often it is speeders who are enabled and condoned by law enforcement, which is |expletive| up.

Most if not all of the examples you gave, Titos, are states basically making laws (or at least taking a stance) that say that their own law doesn't apply... It's complete schizophrenia and it demonstrates the level of disjointedness and confusion that exists concerning traffic laws and enforcement.

Unfortunately, these types of fractured, fragmented laws are the result of our weird federalist system, where each state gets to (to some extent) decide their own laws pertaining to federally funded roads, even though all those roads must meet the same federal standards.

Right of way can be defined as follows:

The right of a vehicle or pedestrian to proceed uninterruptedly in the direction in which it is moving in preference to another vehicle or pedestrian approaching from a different direction. This includes approaching from behind. Right of way has nothing to do with the speed at which a vehicle is traveling.

In general, all of these state traffic laws state that ALL traffic should keep right unless to pass (which still implies that one is only passing at a speed at or below the speed limit). By this standard, no one should ever be in the left lane except to pass at a safe speed or to turn left. Clearly this is not the case and most people use the left lane as the speeding lane and are enabled by law enforcement.

Here is some language from Massachusetts' "Rules of the Road" manual that's among some of the more coherent I've seen, though it is still not without its own ambiguities.

You should pass a pedestrian, bicyclist, or motor vehicle only when it is necessary and safe to do so. You may not exceed the speed limit when passing. If you have any doubt, do not pass.

Whether or not this is enforced is another thing. I have to admit I have no faith that this is being enforced in Massachusetts or any other state...

...which opens up a whole other can of worms, contributing to the broken window effect that explains much about our dysfunctional society.

[S33]

"fragmented laws are the result of our weird federalist system"

This "weird federalist system" was intended to be much more absolute when it was created, in terms of states governing themselves. Unfortunately, traffic laws seem to be a state's only governing power they have left.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

Well, that and denying civil rights, I guess.

Your tone seems to hint that you think it is a bad thing that states don't have more sovereignty.

[GetUrban]

Right of way can be defined as follows:

The right of a vehicle or pedestrian to proceed uninterruptedly in the direction in which it is moving in preference to another vehicle or pedestrian approaching from a different direction. This includes approaching from behind. Right of way has nothing to do with the speed at which a vehicle is traveling.

How can traveling in the same direction in the same lane (approaching from behind) also be traveling in a different direction? The only difference is the point in time which you occupy a given location in physical space and possibly the speed you're traveling. But you said it has nothing to do with speed.

I think you're giving too much credence to the term Right-of-Way. There are circumstances which override your Right-of-way....such as those spelled-out in The Rules of the Road.

Obviously people shouldn't be speeding, but "going with the flow" is still preferable over obstructing traffic, as the Rules of the Road take into account.
Also, there is enough variation in accuracy of speedometers in all of the various vehicles to account for difference in speed, even if everyone thinks they are going exactly the speed limit, to account for actual speed differences between vehicles. Most states allow a 5-10 mph cushion before citations will be issued.

In conclusion....most would agree slower traffic should keep right....even though it seems fewer are following this rule now. ...resulting in an outbreak of Left-Lane-Hogitus.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

"going with the flow" is still preferable over obstructing traffic.

I emphatically disagree, as should law enforcement. Apparently it isn't so obvious that people shouldn't be speeding because it is so commonplace. "Going with the flow" is probably the number one justification for speeding. I guarantee it. And again, this is total bullshit.

Another issue is the way we think of traffic. It refers to all users of the road, but we have contorted it to mean just automobiles. The rule of law most definitely uses the term "traffic" in its true sense, which means that whether I'm driving, walking, riding a bicycle, rollerblading, skateboarding, etc. in the road, I AM traffic. Therefore, how can I be obstructing traffic when I am traffic?

See the recent folly of the OPD trying to ban carriages and pedicabs near TDAmeritrade Park for a pertinent example of how this misunderstanding has pervaded our law enforcement.

As for the speedometer excuse, that's bullshit, too. It seems tantamount to "pleading ignorance." Your speed is your speed. You would think that, where safety is concerned, it would behoove each individual motorist to either make sure his/her speedometer is accurate, or to air on the side of caution and choose to travel below the posted speed limit, because otherwise, they risk getting a speeding ticket. But no, we, as a society, take the stance of "eh, give or take 5-10 mph is fine." That 10 mph could be the difference between life or death for a pedestrian who is hit by a car.

Whatever. I'm kind of through with this discussion, and I'm sure most of you are, too. Suffice to say, our system of law enforcement, at least as it pertains to traffic law, is completely dysfunctional when you stop to consider that the point of the laws is to keep people safe and save lives.

But, as we demonstrate over, and over, and over, and over, and over again as a society, we're pretty OK with people being killed on our roadways.

[Bosco55David]

Bosco, it has nothing to do with going to the police academy. I see police officers breaking the same traffic laws most average drivers do, at times when it is not necessary to do so.

How are you able to determine if it is necessary or not? Are you in the car with them?

Believe me, there are many efforts under way at this very second to educate and train law enforcement officers so that they have the knowledge they need to enforce the rules of the road.

Yeah, it's called the police academy. You know, it's that thing people go to for about 4-6 months to learn how to...get this...be cops.

[brick]

Streets, does anything about society/government/urban design in the world around you make you happy? Is there anything out there that works to your satisfaction?

You have a downright NEGATIVE opinion on almost EVERYTHING you have ever written about.

[S33]

Well, that and denying civil rights, I guess.

Your tone seems to hint that you think it is a bad thing that states don't have more sovereignty.

Yes. I firmly believe in the 10th amendment, which our federal government conveniently ignores.

[GetUrban]

Streets, not to pick on you, but while riding your bike on a street or bike trail, have you ever encountered a slow-moving fellow cycling enthusiast and wished they would move over to the right and let you by? Or are you content poking along behind them....or maybe they are always polite or smart enough to let you by. This is assuming you are not speeding, of course.

Also, I totally agree that the OPD should not ban horse-drawn carriages, rickshaws, peddle cars, etc around the CWS. But that is a different issue. They should allow them because it will make the CWS a more festive event, and also allow vendors to make a little cash.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

Streets, does anything about society/government/urban design in the world around you make you happy?

In the world? Yes. In America? Very very little. See my comments in the New Devon Tower thread (Elsewhere forum) for more details...

GetUrban, to answer your question, no. That has never really happened to me. I don't tend to "speed" on my bicycle (which would be extremely difficult to do in the first place), but any time that situation has arisen, I have been able to either safely and legally pass or just stay behind and keep traveling at a safe speed.

You guys act as if I don't know what it's like to drive a car. The automobile was my exclusive form of transportation for about 10 years up until a year and a half ago, and even now my fiancee and I will rent a car for little weekend excursions and whatnot. I know what it's like. Now my primary transportation is either the bus or my bicycle, and BELIEVE me there are frustrations that go along with both. And yes, sometimes it's difficult to keep your composure and have a little self-control.

Yeah, it sucks to be "stuck" behind a slow driver (and by "slow," this most often means obeying the speed limit). I'm not saying it doesn't. That still doesn't justify reckless and dangerous behavior.

I see that kind of behavior all around me in Albany and the rest of NYS. The drivers are really, really horrible here. Really.

Bosco, are you a cop? Because if you are, you're not helping your cause with posts like your last one.

[Linkin5]

Thank you Titos, Jessep, and GetUrban for providing examples of the type of bunk that is on the books concerning traffic laws.

This type of language is not uncommon:

any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing

And who defines "normal"? Most often it is speeders who are enabled and condoned by law enforcement, which is |expletive| up.

Most if not all of the examples you gave, Titos, are states basically making laws (or at least taking a stance) that say that their own law doesn't apply... It's complete schizophrenia and it demonstrates the level of disjointedness and confusion that exists concerning traffic laws and enforcement.

Unfortunately, these types of fractured, fragmented laws are the result of our weird federalist system, where each state gets to (to some extent) decide their own laws pertaining to federally funded roads, even though all those roads must meet the same federal standards.

Right of way can be defined as follows:

The right of a vehicle or pedestrian to proceed uninterruptedly in the direction in which it is moving in preference to another vehicle or pedestrian approaching from a different direction. This includes approaching from behind. Right of way has nothing to do with the speed at which a vehicle is traveling.

In general, all of these state traffic laws state that ALL traffic should keep right unless to pass (which still implies that one is only passing at a speed at or below the speed limit). By this standard, no one should ever be in the left lane except to pass at a safe speed or to turn left. Clearly this is not the case and most people use the left lane as the speeding lane and are enabled by law enforcement.

Here is some language from Massachusetts' "Rules of the Road" manual that's among some of the more coherent I've seen, though it is still not without its own ambiguities.

You should pass a pedestrian, bicyclist, or motor vehicle only when it is necessary and safe to do so. You may not exceed the speed limit when passing. If you have any doubt, do not pass.

Whether or not this is enforced is another thing. I have to admit I have no faith that this is being enforced in Massachusetts or any other state...

...which opens up a whole other can of worms, contributing to the broken window effect that explains much about our dysfunctional society.

lol. Thanks for hyperlinking the broken window theory, thats some pretty advanced stuff they must be teaching you in grad school.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

I'm confused. Is that sarcasm?

Anyway, that's a theory I came across on my own, not in any class. I'm not sure what the "lol" is for, either; the theory is |expletive| brilliant and right on, and it explains a ton about why our society is so broken right now.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

From today's OWH:

http://www.omaha.com/article/20111215/N ... atal-crash

Criminal charges unlikely in fatal crash

Collins, 41, was killed Sept. 18. He was standing in the left lane of I-80 directing traffic when a Honda Accord driven by Thies, then 43, went around slowed traffic and struck Collins, according to the Iowa State Patrol's accident report.

I'm posting this because, in this instance, the driver seems to have been passing on the right (recklessly in my opinion, from the details here), which is a topic that has been discussed quite a bit here.

He |expletive| killed someone, and authorities are saying they can't do anything more than give him a ticket, because:

“Coming on to a crash scene and driving too fast for conditions, I'm going to have to have more than that.”

This guy was even convicted for motor vehicle homicide back in 1988, but somehow that has "no bearing now."

America: where killing someone is legal so long as you do it with a motor vehicle, because then people can say it was an "accident." Well, I think that's one "accident" this guy will never make again. Or, who knows? Maybe he'll go for three.

[joeglow]

Collins, 41, was killed Sept. 18. He was standing in the left lane of I-80 directing traffic when a Honda Accord driven by Thies, then 43, went around slowed traffic and struck Collins, according to the Iowa State Patrol's accident report.

I'm posting this because, in this instance, the driver seems to have been passing on the right (recklessly in my opinion, from the details here), which is a topic that has been discussed quite a bit here.

He |expletive| killed someone, and authorities are saying they can't do anything more than give him a ticket, because:

You realize we don't live in Europe, right?

[almighty_tuna]

He was standing in the left lane of I-80

Well, *there's* your problem...

[Linkin5]

From today's OWH:

http://www.omaha.com/article/20111215/N ... atal-crash

Criminal charges unlikely in fatal crash

Collins, 41, was killed Sept. 18. He was standing in the left lane of I-80 directing traffic when a Honda Accord driven by Thies, then 43, went around slowed traffic and struck Collins, according to the Iowa State Patrol's accident report.

I'm posting this because, in this instance, the driver seems to have been passing on the right (recklessly in my opinion, from the details here), which is a topic that has been discussed quite a bit here.

He |expletive| killed someone, and authorities are saying they can't do anything more than give him a ticket, because:

“Coming on to a crash scene and driving too fast for conditions, I'm going to have to have more than that.”

This guy was even convicted for motor vehicle homicide back in 1988, but somehow that has "no bearing now."

America: where killing someone is legal so long as you do it with a motor vehicle, because then people can say it was an "accident." Well, I think that's one "accident" this guy will never make again. Or, who knows? Maybe he'll go for three.

That's pretty messed up on the driver's part. From what the article said he did the #1 most annoying (and in this case deadly) thing a driver can do which is blazing by everyone that is backed up in traffic because he didn't want to wait.

[OmahaBen]

Just saying, there are unwritten rules to the road, and people should follow them.

Actually, there aren't. Plain and simple. It's a fallacy and it's an attitude that people use to justify breaking the law. Quite frankly, it's total bull |expletive|, and the sooner people realize that, the better off our society--or what's left of it--will be.

Just becuase you don't like the law, doesn't mean it isn't the law. And even if you were legally correct, you're still being a dick by doing that on a highway, however.

[OmahaBen]

"going with the flow" is still preferable over obstructing traffic.

I emphatically disagree, as should law enforcement.

Difference in speed kills more than speed itself. There's a reason there's a minimum speed limit on the interstate system.

You can keep playing devil's advocate if you wish, or you could just admit that you're wrong on this one for a change. You can't even argue a technicality, since the rules of the road in Nebraska say you are wrong.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

Linkin, exactly.

Joeglow, what a random, pointless comment.

OmahaBen, what are you talking about? Where am I wrong? You say just because I don't like a law doesn't mean it's not the law, then you turn around and say I'm a dick for following the law... (in the hypothetical situation we're talking about where I would be driving the speed limit in the left lane.)

[joeglow]

Joeglow, what a random, pointless comment.

I was commenting on your thought that passing in the LEFT lane (i.e. the individual struck was in the left lane) is quite acceptable in the US under our set of laws.