There I was, Driving in the Right Lane...

yesterday morning, about 5:00 AM on rt. 5 SE of DC. Everyone else seems to be
wanting to do 70 mph in the rain and the dark, the SL is 55, and I'm doing my
usual +7 of the SL. In the right lane - I had a right turn coming up in about
5 miles anyway... so what happens?

A straight truck, with a minimum of lights - I think maybe 4 - two down low,
two up high, and a big black void in between, appears out of the rain and mist
doing about 40 mph. I hit the brakes, slow down without problem, but now...

there's a car coming up behind me, assumedly at the 70 mph that most everyone
else wants to go, and he gets really, really close before I can tell that he's
slowing down at all. Yeah, he got it hauled down before hitting me, but that
was close. He had to get it hauled down, as the left lane was full of 70 mph.

What did I do wrong? How could I have avoided this close call? Easy - what a
JERK - I SHOULDA BEEN IN THE LEFT LANE!!!! Problem would have been solved.
The speeding idiots could have just gone around on the right, and rightfully
had to deal with the slow truck in the right lane instead of putting me at
risk.

Dave Head

Of course something else you could have done was drive at a reasonable
speed for conditions "in the rain and dark". Still wouldn't have
avoided near rear-enders tho as no-one else has a concept of 'slow down
in bad conditions" or "follow at a safe distance". There are times when
going with the flow is the only safe thing to do even if that would be
at what would be considered an unsafe speed.

Harry K

Of course something else you could have done was drive at a reasonable
speed for conditions "in the rain and dark". Still wouldn't have
avoided near rear-enders tho as no-one else has a concept of 'slow down
in bad conditions" or "follow at a safe distance". There are times when
going with the flow is the only safe thing to do even if that would be
at what would be considered an unsafe speed.

Harry K

On 12 Dec 2004 08:01:59 -0800, "Harry K" > wrote:

>Of course something else you could have done was drive at a reasonable
>speed for conditions "in the rain and dark".

I was - read it again. _I_ had no problem slowing for the truck!

>Still wouldn't have
>avoided near rear-enders tho as no-one else has a concept of 'slow down
>in bad conditions" or "follow at a safe distance".

Yep.

>There are times when
>going with the flow is the only safe thing to do even if that would be
>at what would be considered an unsafe speed.

But not in the right lane. If I was "with the flow" at 70 in the right lane, I
_might_ have had a problem with slowing for the truck.

The left lane was the place to be, for sure. Now, as for doing 70, an
obviously unsafe speed, (this would not be simple speeding, but the more
serious "driving too fast for conditions"), just because everyone else is - do
you really think that?

Dave Head

>
>Harry K

On 12 Dec 2004 08:01:59 -0800, "Harry K" > wrote:

>Of course something else you could have done was drive at a reasonable
>speed for conditions "in the rain and dark".

I was - read it again. _I_ had no problem slowing for the truck!

>Still wouldn't have
>avoided near rear-enders tho as no-one else has a concept of 'slow down
>in bad conditions" or "follow at a safe distance".

Yep.

>There are times when
>going with the flow is the only safe thing to do even if that would be
>at what would be considered an unsafe speed.

But not in the right lane. If I was "with the flow" at 70 in the right lane, I
_might_ have had a problem with slowing for the truck.

The left lane was the place to be, for sure. Now, as for doing 70, an
obviously unsafe speed, (this would not be simple speeding, but the more
serious "driving too fast for conditions"), just because everyone else is - do
you really think that?

Dave Head

>
>Harry K

On 12 Dec 2004 08:01:59 -0800, "Harry K" >
wrote:

>Of course something else you could have done was drive at a reasonable
>speed for conditions "in the rain and dark". Still wouldn't have
>avoided near rear-enders tho as no-one else has a concept of 'slow down
>in bad conditions" or "follow at a safe distance". There are times when
>going with the flow is the only safe thing to do even if that would be
>at what would be considered an unsafe speed.
moving with the flow of traffic is always safer than being legal.
however, this newsgroup (as do many) seems to cater to
those trying to talk extreme. so this advice, i'm sure,
is wasted.
....thehick

On 12 Dec 2004 08:01:59 -0800, "Harry K" >
wrote:

>Of course something else you could have done was drive at a reasonable
>speed for conditions "in the rain and dark". Still wouldn't have
>avoided near rear-enders tho as no-one else has a concept of 'slow down
>in bad conditions" or "follow at a safe distance". There are times when
>going with the flow is the only safe thing to do even if that would be
>at what would be considered an unsafe speed.
moving with the flow of traffic is always safer than being legal.
however, this newsgroup (as do many) seems to cater to
those trying to talk extreme. so this advice, i'm sure,
is wasted.
....thehick

On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 09:19:02 -0800, Scott en Aztlán
> wrote:

>On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 14:55:22 GMT, Dave Head > wrote:
>
>>there's a car coming up behind me, assumedly at the 70 mph that most everyone
>>else wants to go, and he gets really, really close before I can tell that he's
>>slowing down at all. Yeah, he got it hauled down before hitting me, but that
>>was close. He had to get it hauled down, as the left lane was full of 70 mph.
>>
>>What did I do wrong? How could I have avoided this close call? Easy - what a
>>JERK - I SHOULDA BEEN IN THE LEFT LANE!!!!
>
>Yeah, right - nobody EVER gets rear-ended in the LEFT lane - that only
>happens in the RIGHT lane.

Duh - the slow delivery trucks are in the right lane... get real.

>
>

On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 09:19:02 -0800, Scott en Aztlán
> wrote:

>On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 14:55:22 GMT, Dave Head > wrote:
>
>>there's a car coming up behind me, assumedly at the 70 mph that most everyone
>>else wants to go, and he gets really, really close before I can tell that he's
>>slowing down at all. Yeah, he got it hauled down before hitting me, but that
>>was close. He had to get it hauled down, as the left lane was full of 70 mph.
>>
>>What did I do wrong? How could I have avoided this close call? Easy - what a
>>JERK - I SHOULDA BEEN IN THE LEFT LANE!!!!
>
>Yeah, right - nobody EVER gets rear-ended in the LEFT lane - that only
>happens in the RIGHT lane.

Duh - the slow delivery trucks are in the right lane... get real.

>
>

"Dave Head" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 09:19:02 -0800, Scott en Aztlán
> > wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 14:55:22 GMT, Dave Head > wrote:
> >
> >>there's a car coming up behind me, assumedly at the 70 mph that most
everyone
> >>else wants to go, and he gets really, really close before I can tell
that he's
> >>slowing down at all. Yeah, he got it hauled down before hitting me, but
that
> >>was close. He had to get it hauled down, as the left lane was full of
70 mph.
> >>
> >>What did I do wrong? How could I have avoided this close call? Easy -
what a
> >>JERK - I SHOULDA BEEN IN THE LEFT LANE!!!!
> >
> >Yeah, right - nobody EVER gets rear-ended in the LEFT lane - that only
> >happens in the RIGHT lane.
>
> Duh - the slow delivery trucks are in the right lane... get real.

If they drive like you they would be in the left lane.