How I anger drivers...

"harry k" > wrote in message
...
On Sep 14, 6:29 am, "C. E. White" >
wrote:
> > "harry k" > wrote in message
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > In my state, and I am sure in others also, my defense will be
> > > "it is
> > > legal to exceed the speed limit while passing" then sue the cop
> > > for
> > > false arrest.
> >
> > What state are you in? I am in North Carolina and a Highway Patrol
> > Officer assured me it is not actually legal to speed when passing
> > another vehicle. He agreed with me that was a reasonable thing to
> > do,
> > as long as you did not keep speeding after you completed the pass.
> > He
> > didn't write tickets for it, as long as you didn't abuse the
> > practice.
> > I checked the NC statutes and confirmed there was no exception
> > that
> > made it legal to speed while passing at least in NC.
> >
> > Ed

> Washington

> Harry K

For grins I tried searching the Washington State Vehicle Code for a
rule that allowed exceeding the posted speed limit while passing. I
could not find it and don't believe it exists. Prehaps you are
confusing a "practice" of the law enforcement community with the
actual law. See http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.61.400
and http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.61 . If anything,
the Washington state laws seem even more restrictive than what I am
used to.

While searching for rules that allowed speeding while passing, I did
find this gem...

"RCW 46.61.665
"Embracing another while driving.

"It shall be unlawful for any person to operate a motor vehicle upon
the highways of this state when such person has in his or her embrace
another person which prevents the free and unhampered operation of
such vehicle. Operation of a motor vehicle in violation of this
section is prima facie evidence of reckless driving."

So in Washington, if you throw your arm around your girlfriend, you
can get a reckless driving ticket......

Ed

"Arif Khokar" > wrote in message
...
> Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
>
>> No, you're clearly a blockade in the road ...
>
> Is that why you drive in the passing lane when not passing?

Ha! Not even the same topic of discussion. If I am in the passing lane not
passing, I am at least AT the posted speed limit. In this discussion, the
bicyclist was BELOW the speed limit, not AT the speed limit.

Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
> "Arif Khokar" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
>>
>>> No, you're clearly a blockade in the road ...
>>
>> Is that why you drive in the passing lane when not passing?
>
> Ha! Not even the same topic of discussion. If I am in the passing lane
> not passing

....or preparing for a left turn or exit, then you're wrong.

nate



--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On 2009-09-14, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. > wrote:
> "Arif Khokar" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
>>
>>> No, you're clearly a blockade in the road ...
>>
>> Is that why you drive in the passing lane when not passing?
>
> Ha! Not even the same topic of discussion. If I am in the passing lane not
> passing, I am at least AT the posted speed limit. In this discussion, the
> bicyclist was BELOW the speed limit, not AT the speed limit.

What makes the posted speed limit so magical that it allows you to block
traffic? I've had drivers do much the same as that audi driver when I've
been going 25 in a 25 on a bicycle too. My travel speed was irrelevant
to them, only that I was bicycling was relevant.

And for the record, the Audi driver passed me in an okay manner and I
had no problem with it. He didn't have any trouble passing me. It was
the fact that he couldn't handle the curve very shortly there after at a
speed greater than what I (riding a bicycle) could (in fact,
significantly less than I could because I caught up to him). That is,
he could not drive the posted speed limit through the curve.

Since he could not maintain this value of speed (posted limit) through
the curve, why was I in the wrong for making a most minor objection by
saying 'go', that is to speed up when I was legally prohibited from
passing him? (and considering the way he couldn't keep that tall station
wagon in the lane, it wouldn't have been wise to try legal or not on
either side)

"Brent" > wrote in message
...
> On 2009-09-14, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. > wrote:
>> "Arif Khokar" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
>>>
>>>> No, you're clearly a blockade in the road ...
>>>
>>> Is that why you drive in the passing lane when not passing?
>>
>> Ha! Not even the same topic of discussion. If I am in the passing lane
>> not
>> passing, I am at least AT the posted speed limit. In this discussion, the
>> bicyclist was BELOW the speed limit, not AT the speed limit.
>
> What makes the posted speed limit so magical that it allows you to block
> traffic? I've had drivers do much the same as that audi driver when I've
> been going 25 in a 25 on a bicycle too. My travel speed was irrelevant
> to them, only that I was bicycling was relevant.
>
This has already been debated before, so I refuse to get drawn into a long
redux.

It is sufficient to say that:

* No matter what conventional wisdom may be about the passing lane, vehicle
codes require that traffic goes no faster than the speed limit, so
* If faster than the speed limit traffic is being "blocked", and the vehicle
in the left lane is at the speed limit, I believe the vehicle has the OPTION
to merge right, because
* Traffic above the speed limit is driving illegally, and the legal driver
has no obligation to accommodate illegal traffic.

So I'll just leave the final decision as to whether I am actively blocking
traffic by remaining at the speed limit in the left lane to the qualified
law enforcement officers that patrol those roads.

It also goes without saying that if I have an opportunity to merge right and
let a speeder continue, I'll likely do so if and only if I don't have to
speed up to find the gap to merge right and I can just safely merge right,
and if and only if they are not tailgating. If no such gap exists, then yes
I will hold my legal speed until such time as the gap to merge right does
reveal itself and the speeding driver will just have to wait it out. I'll
also never speed up when someone decides to tailgate me, period. This is
especially the case with two lanes in one direction and a slower vehicle or
truck any visible distance ahead in the right lane, if I have chosen the
left lane to avoid those issues.

Same goes for two lane roads (i.e., only one lane in each direction),
especially mountain road type highways. That speeding Mustang or Porsche,
for example, that wants to do 70mph on a 55mph road? Too bad, I have no
obligation to turn out because the posted limit (i.e., legal maximum speed)
happens to be 55mph. On the other hand, if I elect to do 40mph on a
55mph--say for example I am completely unfamiliar with the road--then I
should use turnouts as required.

[snip...]

On Sep 14, 8:21*am, "C. E. White" >
wrote:
> "harry k" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Sep 14, 6:29 am, "C. E. White" >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > "harry k" > wrote in message
>
> > ....
>
> > > > In my state, and I am sure in others also, my defense will be
> > > > "it is
> > > > legal to exceed the speed limit while passing" then sue the cop
> > > > for
> > > > false arrest.
>
> > > What state are you in? I am in North Carolina and a Highway Patrol
> > > Officer assured me it is not actually legal to speed when passing
> > > another vehicle. He agreed with me that was a reasonable thing to
> > > do,
> > > as long as you did not keep speeding after you completed the pass.
> > > He
> > > didn't write tickets for it, as long as you didn't abuse the
> > > practice.
> > > I checked the NC statutes and confirmed there was no exception
> > > that
> > > made it legal to speed while passing at least in NC.
>
> > > Ed
> > Washington
> > Harry K
>
> For grins I tried searching the Washington State Vehicle Code for a
> rule that allowed exceeding the posted speed limit while passing. I
> could not find it and don't believe it exists. Prehaps you are
> confusing a "practice" of the law enforcement community with the
> actual law. Seehttp://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.61.400
> andhttp://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.61. If anything,
> the Washington state laws seem even more restrictive than what I am
> used to.
>
> While searching for rules that allowed speeding while passing, I did
> find this gem...
>
> "RCW 46.61.665
> "Embracing another while driving.
>
> "It shall be unlawful for any person to operate a motor vehicle upon
> the highways of this state when such person has in his or her embrace
> another person which prevents the free and unhampered operation of
> such vehicle. Operation of a motor vehicle in violation of this
> section is prima facie evidence of reckless driving."
>
> So in Washington, if you throw your arm around your girlfriend, you
> can get a reckless driving ticket......
>
> Ed- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Rather than dig through all that stuff, I'll stop by the local
detachment. Someone there will either have the cite or tell me it is
wrong. I used to have the driver's study manual but not present any
more...that is the one that basically says if you are still breathing
you can get a license.

Harry K

On 2009-09-14, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. > wrote:

> * No matter what conventional wisdom may be about the passing lane, vehicle
> codes require that traffic goes no faster than the speed limit, so
> * If faster than the speed limit traffic is being "blocked", and the vehicle
> in the left lane is at the speed limit, I believe the vehicle has the OPTION
> to merge right, because
> * Traffic above the speed limit is driving illegally, and the legal driver
> has no obligation to accommodate illegal traffic.

So in a law is the law argument, at 25mph I was just fine. I didn't even
have to keep to the right edge. That is if you want to rely on a law is
the law argument. Remember, it's the "normal speed of traffic", and
25mph at that location and time is the normal speed of traffic since the
audi driver could not exceed that speed himself over but a few yards at
the start. It was beyond his driving abilities with that vehicle. So,
under your own logic I could have intentionally blocked his pass with my
bicycle (which I didn't, giving him the benefit of the doubt that he
could handle the curve).

> Same goes for two lane roads (i.e., only one lane in each direction),
> especially mountain road type highways. That speeding Mustang or Porsche,
> for example, that wants to do 70mph on a 55mph road? Too bad, I have no
> obligation to turn out because the posted limit (i.e., legal maximum speed)
> happens to be 55mph. On the other hand, if I elect to do 40mph on a
> 55mph--say for example I am completely unfamiliar with the road--then I
> should use turnouts as required.

And if there are no turnouts? Or the turn out is some miles away?

On Sep 12, 11:50*pm, Brent

> I am not legally allowed to pass. But lets say I passed instead, would
> that not be rude? When legally allowed to pass, I have, and some drivers
> have gotten violently angry because of it, even though I spoke not a
> word.

Bicycles can't legally pass cars on the right where you live? And
cars can't cross the center line to pass you? God I love NH.

On 2009-09-14, DanKMTB > wrote:

> Bicycles can't legally pass cars on the right where you live?

Legal only with 8 feet or more of unobstructed pavement.

> And cars can't cross the center line to pass you?

A solid yellow? I don't know if its legal or not given the newish 3
foot spacing law. If it is illegal it's not enforced.

"Brent" > wrote in message
...
> On 2009-09-14, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. > wrote:
>
>> * No matter what conventional wisdom may be about the passing lane,
>> vehicle
>> codes require that traffic goes no faster than the speed limit, so
>> * If faster than the speed limit traffic is being "blocked", and the
>> vehicle
>> in the left lane is at the speed limit, I believe the vehicle has the
>> OPTION
>> to merge right, because
>> * Traffic above the speed limit is driving illegally, and the legal
>> driver
>> has no obligation to accommodate illegal traffic.
>
> So in a law is the law argument, at 25mph I was just fine. I didn't even
> have to keep to the right edge. That is if you want to rely on a law is
> the law argument. Remember, it's the "normal speed of traffic", and
> 25mph at that location and time is the normal speed of traffic since the
> audi driver could not exceed that speed himself over but a few yards at
> the start. It was beyond his driving abilities with that vehicle. So,
> under your own logic I could have intentionally blocked his pass with my
> bicycle (which I didn't, giving him the benefit of the doubt that he
> could handle the curve).
>
Except that the vehicle code requires bicycles to ride as far to the right
as practicable, so yes, you did still need to keep the right edge.

That means no, you could not have intentionally blocked his pass, being
required to keep to the right edge.

>> Same goes for two lane roads (i.e., only one lane in each direction),
>> especially mountain road type highways. That speeding Mustang or Porsche,
>> for example, that wants to do 70mph on a 55mph road? Too bad, I have no
>> obligation to turn out because the posted limit (i.e., legal maximum
>> speed)
>> happens to be 55mph. On the other hand, if I elect to do 40mph on a
>> 55mph--say for example I am completely unfamiliar with the road--then I
>> should use turnouts as required.
>
> And if there are no turnouts? Or the turn out is some miles away?
>

Then obviously it is not safe to turn out. Traffic has to just tough it out,
until the place where it is safe to turnout exists and the slow vehicle
turns out. I am also assuming insufficient shoulder of the road to pull
over, in addition to the lack of a turnout. In that case, it is less of the
vehicle intentionally blocking traffic as it is poor road engineering (i.e.,
if a vehicle stalled or otherwise broke down and couldn't turn out they'd
block the only lane of thru traffic).

Still, here's where the bicyclist as an edge--their bike is much narrower
than a motor vehicle so they can turn out in many places a motor vehicle
could not (in many cases, that space only needs to be slightly wider than
shoulder-width apart with respect to the bicyclist's and bicycle dimensions
and they could pull over, dismount if needed, and wait for traffic to pass).
With that, the excuse that a bike couldn't turn out just because a motor
vehicle can't turn out is also pre-emptively defeated.