Welcome to petty lane
-
There are speed limits in both directions, in every jurisdiction I'm familiar with it's illegal to drive both too fast and too slow, to exceed the posted speed limit or to drive so slowly that it impedes other traffic.
Oh, that's very interesting. Where I live there are only upper speed limits on most roads except highways. On other roads you can drive as slowly as you want, though everyone will overtake you if they can or honk at you if you don't.
-
Oh, that's very interesting. Where I live there are only upper speed limits on most roads except highways. On other roads you can drive as slowly as you want, though everyone will overtake you if they can or honk at you if you don't.
Where I live there are only upper speed limits on most roads except highways. On other roads you can drive as slowly as you want,
Are you sure that you really don't have any traffic rules against causing a hazard or impeding traffic flow by being too slow? That seems both unusual and unsafe to me.
-
Every study we have shows that the roads are safer, there are less crashes and they are less deadly when everyone just goes slower. But apparently you would rather risk getting turned into a rorschach splat than advocate for the thing that actually makes roads safer.
Yup, I'm sure the highway is much safer if everyone is traveling at 10. However, if I'm the only one traveling at 10 I have made the highway much more dangerous.
I'm advocating for not being a fucking idiot and causing an accident because in theory it's safer to travel at slower speeds.
-
Where I live there are only upper speed limits on most roads except highways. On other roads you can drive as slowly as you want,
Are you sure that you really don't have any traffic rules against causing a hazard or impeding traffic flow by being too slow? That seems both unusual and unsafe to me.
Where I’m from an officer can always pull you over for “reckless driving” or “impeding traffic”. The argument can literally be made that you’re driving dangerously no matter how fast you go. These days I just stick to the literal posted speed (as long as road conditions and traffic allow) and I’ll let a lawyer defend me from any citations. I stay in the slow lane and am constantly getting passed but I’ll be damned before I get another ticket for going 6 over.
-
Where I’m from an officer can always pull you over for “reckless driving” or “impeding traffic”. The argument can literally be made that you’re driving dangerously no matter how fast you go. These days I just stick to the literal posted speed (as long as road conditions and traffic allow) and I’ll let a lawyer defend me from any citations. I stay in the slow lane and am constantly getting passed but I’ll be damned before I get another ticket for going 6 over.
The argument can literally be made that you’re driving dangerously no matter how fast you go.
Well, that's certainly true also in every jurisdiction I'm familiar with, as it should be, common sense, really.
-
Yup, I'm sure the highway is much safer if everyone is traveling at 10. However, if I'm the only one traveling at 10 I have made the highway much more dangerous.
I'm advocating for not being a fucking idiot and causing an accident because in theory it's safer to travel at slower speeds.
What you're advocating for is allowing entitled psychopaths to set the speed everyone is forced to go because you somehow think that if someone is doing 90 in a 55 and hits someone actually doing 55 that it was the normal person's fault.
I'm obviously not saying anyone should be doing fucking 10 on the highway, I'm saying nobody needs to be doing more than the speed limit.
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote last edited by [email protected]
Wait, so the dude honked after her because she was speeding 20 above the limit (imo justified), and she's pretending of taking the high road by slowing down 30 under the limit just to spite him for her being wrong?
Or maybe it's oddly phrased and he was going 30 over and the petty lane is justified. (Personally I'd go 40-45, just to be not too slow as to be dangerous).
-
The argument can literally be made that you’re driving dangerously no matter how fast you go.
Well, that's certainly true also in every jurisdiction I'm familiar with, as it should be, common sense, really.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Idk I don’t think an officer should have the right to pull over a person driving the posted speed limit in clear weather with no other proximate reason but maybe I’m insane.
-
There's no reason to follow unreasonable rules even when you're driving a death machine. Especially when not following the rules has an essentially near 0 difference in hurting someone with your cage of death(not trying to be sarcastic with cage of death). Many of these roads are designed for much higher speed limits but just have not been evaluated by the government for their speed limit and possibly never will be or they will be evaluated at a much lower than reasonable speed. For example the speed limit of most California freeways is 65 traffic moves at 80 regularly and sometimes when people are feeling frisky up to 90. Neither of those speeds are unreasonable when everyone around you is also doing them and people are used to those situations or understand they will be in those situations. A great example is Germany where parts of their freeways have no speed limit where people are doing in excess of 120 mph and semis are also using it at under 60.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Based on experience, I don't trust random assholes to determine for themselves when a rule is unreasonable. You're unreasonable with this take and presumption about yourself. This makes you dangerous to society. You'll prove that even more as you disagree.
You do not get to determine on your own that your actions have near 0 consequences. That's some level of psychopathic thought and just reinforces why we have some rules. It's also a lack of empathy or consideration of others.
You're breaking a rule operating a dangerous machine, and you're trying to shrug it off as no big deal. Dangerous.
-
Yup, I'm sure the highway is much safer if everyone is traveling at 10. However, if I'm the only one traveling at 10 I have made the highway much more dangerous.
I'm advocating for not being a fucking idiot and causing an accident because in theory it's safer to travel at slower speeds.
wrote last edited by [email protected]You're in the wrong argument. The argument was about speeding and you're trying to bring up recklessness in a mote general sense. Twisting the argument to make a poor point.
You don't justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior.
-
Idk I don’t think an officer should have the right to pull over a person driving the posted speed limit in clear weather with no other proximate reason but maybe I’m insane.
That all depends on what you actually mean by "no other proximate reason".
I think we all agree that the police should take immediate action if someone is driving the wrong direction against traffic, even if they're doing nothing else wrong and are driving the posted speed limit, to take an absolutely obvious example.
-
That all depends on what you actually mean by "no other proximate reason".
I think we all agree that the police should take immediate action if someone is driving the wrong direction against traffic, even if they're doing nothing else wrong and are driving the posted speed limit, to take an absolutely obvious example.
That’s being a little purposely obtuse as that is obviously putting other drivers in danger. I mean that I shouldn’t have to worry about being pulled over if the radar gun says I’m driving the speed limit, obeying traffic laws, and driving a vehicle that is road legal and well maintained.
Yet an officer absolutely can pull me over and ruin my day and waste my time and money making me go to court over absolutely nothing and the absolute worst that can happen to them is a slap on the wrist if anything.
-
You're in the wrong argument. The argument was about speeding and you're trying to bring up recklessness in a mote general sense. Twisting the argument to make a poor point.
You don't justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior.
You're in the wrong argument.
Looks like you're in the wrong argument. The person I was replying to has repeatedly been saying "going slower is safer" and that is what I replied to. It was trivially easily to provide an example where "going slower" is 1) absurd and 2) more dangerous.
If that is not their argument then they need to stop repeating it as if it is and say their actual argument.
-
What you're advocating for is allowing entitled psychopaths to set the speed everyone is forced to go because you somehow think that if someone is doing 90 in a 55 and hits someone actually doing 55 that it was the normal person's fault.
I'm obviously not saying anyone should be doing fucking 10 on the highway, I'm saying nobody needs to be doing more than the speed limit.
If you're argument requires everyone on the road to be a psychopath you might want to reconsider it.
You also haven't been listening, perhaps you're too busy ranting about "psychopaths" to pay attention: I've already said if someone is doing the speed limit and gets hit it is the fault the person speeding. However, I'd much rather not be in an accident at all than "be right" and not the person at fault.
I'm saying nobody needs to be doing more than the speed limit.
-
that's not what you've been saying. You've been repeating "slower is safer" over and over and it was trivial to provide an example that made that argument absurd and untrue.
-
that statement is making a lot of assumptions. The primary one being that the speed limit is set accurately and appropriately. Again, if some politician decided "in the name of safety" to change the speed limit on the highway to 10 would you be arguing against increasing it because "nobody needs be doing more than the speed limit"? Would the people doing 20 on the highways now be psychopaths because the sign on the side of the road changed?
-
-
Based on experience, I don't trust random assholes to determine for themselves when a rule is unreasonable. You're unreasonable with this take and presumption about yourself. This makes you dangerous to society. You'll prove that even more as you disagree.
You do not get to determine on your own that your actions have near 0 consequences. That's some level of psychopathic thought and just reinforces why we have some rules. It's also a lack of empathy or consideration of others.
You're breaking a rule operating a dangerous machine, and you're trying to shrug it off as no big deal. Dangerous.
-
calls random people assholes and psychopaths with little to no provocation
-
claims other people lack empathy and consideration
-
-
Based on experience, I don't trust random assholes to determine for themselves when a rule is unreasonable. You're unreasonable with this take and presumption about yourself. This makes you dangerous to society. You'll prove that even more as you disagree.
You do not get to determine on your own that your actions have near 0 consequences. That's some level of psychopathic thought and just reinforces why we have some rules. It's also a lack of empathy or consideration of others.
You're breaking a rule operating a dangerous machine, and you're trying to shrug it off as no big deal. Dangerous.
Dude when I said that they have near 0 consequences I was talking about how 90% of the time in these situations there basically no one around doing 150 miles an hour wouldn't hurt anyone else. Breaking a rule when no one else is around or everyone else around is doing the same thing is not dangerous. In the case of everyone going 15-25 over the limit it's actually safe. C'mon homie think about it.
-
If you're argument requires everyone on the road to be a psychopath you might want to reconsider it.
You also haven't been listening, perhaps you're too busy ranting about "psychopaths" to pay attention: I've already said if someone is doing the speed limit and gets hit it is the fault the person speeding. However, I'd much rather not be in an accident at all than "be right" and not the person at fault.
I'm saying nobody needs to be doing more than the speed limit.
-
that's not what you've been saying. You've been repeating "slower is safer" over and over and it was trivial to provide an example that made that argument absurd and untrue.
-
that statement is making a lot of assumptions. The primary one being that the speed limit is set accurately and appropriately. Again, if some politician decided "in the name of safety" to change the speed limit on the highway to 10 would you be arguing against increasing it because "nobody needs be doing more than the speed limit"? Would the people doing 20 on the highways now be psychopaths because the sign on the side of the road changed?
To 1, your "example" is a bad faith gotcha based on an insane hypothetical. It does absolutely nothing to prove my argument wrong that everyone would be safer is speeders slowed down to a reasonable speed.
For 2, nearly all highways in the US are set for a speed limit that is both safe for that road and allows for reasonable efficiency of travel. Your example here is once again a bad faith gotcha argument based on insane hypotheticals.
It's become clear that you have nothing meaningful to contribute here. Have a nice life, I'm out.
-
-
-
The phone is clearly mounted on the dashboard.
-
It's not uncommon for people to record their whole trip for social media, not just take to a picture.
-
This caption could have been pasted over a completely unrelated screenshot of someone else's video for all we know.
Don't touch your phone while driving, but also, don't believe everything you see on social media.
Ikr the number of people going "hurr they do phone use" has me wondering when the fuck people lost basic cognitive skills.
-
-
To 1, your "example" is a bad faith gotcha based on an insane hypothetical. It does absolutely nothing to prove my argument wrong that everyone would be safer is speeders slowed down to a reasonable speed.
For 2, nearly all highways in the US are set for a speed limit that is both safe for that road and allows for reasonable efficiency of travel. Your example here is once again a bad faith gotcha argument based on insane hypotheticals.
It's become clear that you have nothing meaningful to contribute here. Have a nice life, I'm out.
wrote last edited by [email protected]your "example" is a bad faith gotcha based on an insane hypothetical.
This you?
you somehow think that if someone is doing 90 in a 55 and hits someone actually doing 55 that it was the normal person's fault.
As for:
It does absolutely nothing to prove my argument wrong that everyone would be safer is speeders slowed down to a reasonable speed.
Your argument has never mentioned "reasonable speed". You have been repeatedly saying "slower is safer" and I pointed out how such a mind numbingly simple statement is useless and incorrect. "Reasonable speed" is a reasonable argument, but then the question becomes "what is a reasonable speed?"
Your example here is once again a bad faith gotcha argument based on insane hypotheticals.
Arguing through absurdity is not bad faith or invalid. The point I was making is that just because the sign next to a road says a certain number that doesn't magically make that number a "reasonable speed". It has already been mentioned that politicians will lower speed limits below a "reasonable speed" for the road conditions in order to claim it's now safer.
-
The state of the road in your scenario is already unsafe because of the people doing 75. Every. Single. Study. Shows that there are less crashes and they are less lethal when everyone just slows the fuck down. But none of you entitled fuckwits will accept even the tiniest bit of personal inconvenience for the sake of your own safety and that of everyone around you, so we have to live in fucking Mad Max instead.
-sees traffic moving down the road with no accidents
"Is this Mad Max?"
