[motorcycle.com] - The Safety-Based Case Against Left Lane Squatters

[Ninjette Newsbot]

If you’re a motorcyclist, odds are that you aren’t one of those car drivers that squats in the left lane plodding along exactly at the speed limit while everyone else stacks up behind you with their blood pressure nearing the bursting point. Then again, maybe you are one of those mouth-breathers who believes it is their God-given right to drive in whatever lane they want, no matter who it inconveniences. (If you are, we’ve got*a special place in Hell carved out for you to spend all of eternity listening to the Barney Song*turned up to 11.)

While we’ve all experienced the aggravation*of the left lane squatter, it turns out that slowing down traffic in the left lane is also a safety hazard because it forces faster drivers to weave back and forth between lanes, which can cause a cascading wave of deceleration in the right lane that further slows and stacks up traffic. Oh yeah, it increases the odds of an accident, too.

So, next time you see some doofus*online, bloviating about how safe he is going the speed limit in the left lane instead of sticking to the right unless he’s passing, point him in the direction of the video below. While it probably won’t change the blowhard’s behavior, you might just inform some less experienced driver, like the narrator in the video, about proper lane discipline.
Get the Flash Player to see this player.



The Safety-Based Case Against Left Lane Squatters appeared first on Motorcycle.com.



Click here for full story...

[VaFish]

This should be required viewing in all drivers ed classes.

[Z1R rider]

[3ØØ]

this is my biggest cause of road rage. i want to rip someones head off when they are driving in the left lane blocking traffic side by side with the slow car in the other lane, and you cant pass.

im going to make a sign that says "keep right, pass left, ASSHOLE!" to flash to these nimrods when i do pass them.

funny thing is, i talk about this EVERY day, no lie. i always tell my girl how if i was a cop, the only ppl id tickets is lane blockers.

right here, in my state. http://www.fox13news.com/news/local-...14281038-story
do you think 85% of the drivers and old ****s even know this laof NO

[Dave Wolfe]

The entire state of Ohio doesnt understand this...

[FrugalNinja250]

Left lane blockers are just as much assholes as tailgaters and zoom-n-cutters. All of those tactics are part of the typical psychopath's toolkit while driving.

Why use the word "psychopath"? Doesn't that seem harsh? Psychopathy is often defined as "...a personality disorder characterized by persistent antisocial behavior, impaired empathy and remorse, and bold, disinhibited, egotistical traits." People who tailgate are deliberately removing their ability to avoid a collision if the person they're tailgating has to suddenly brake. They are, deliberately, choosing to create that risk of collision where there was none before, and since by definition they don't care about the consequences of their actions, (if they did, they wouldn't tailgate) they are psychopaths.

Left lane blockers (or any lane blockers of any kind, such as those that tailgate to block entrance lanes) do this because they somehow believe that by temporarily blocking another taxpayer from entering the freeway they make traffic flow better. They do this in stop-n-go traffic completely oblivious that the reason they're in that traffic is because other asshats just like them did that same exact thing ahead of them. Lane blockers are definitely acting out of a lack of social responsibility or even a deliberate anti-social attitude, thus fitting the definition of psychopathy.

Zoom-n-cutters are the same. You know the type, they're the ones that take advantage of the decent people who negotiate an earlier merge when a lane ends. They'll pass a few dozen cars and then at the very last few feet they'll stop with their signal on to merge and then use their car in a threatening manner to physically force their way into line. Social bullies using their car as a weapon. Psychopaths.

How would that be different than a person walking up to the cashier and cutting into line ahead of everyone else? It's not. I've had people do that to me three times in the last year here in Dallas, where rudeness and anti-social behavior is the norm. My response to that when it happens? I just drop what I was going to buy onto the floor and walk out the door. I generally don't go back, ever.

Going back to the Zoom-n-cutters, I've seen people who claim that "zippering makes most efficient use of the road". They're quoting from articles like this one: http://arstechnica.com/cars/2014/07/...d-drive-ruder/ Here's the flaw with that line of reasoning, though: The actual traffic flow capacity through a given stretch of road, measured in cars per hour, is limited to the most restricted portion of that road. When you lose a lane you reduce the capacity of the entire road to what it is at that loss point. The only way to maximize capacity is by reducing speed loss through the constriction, and the best way to do that is to get everyone evenly and fairly merged before the restriction so that speeds through the restriction are less reduced, and capacity is thus increased. That's true zippering, not filling up the lanes at the very end.

Edit to add: So-called zippering requires that cars adjust their spacing such that they can merge safely, with little risk of a collision. Zippering in the hundreds of feet before the constriction is much easier because people are already spaced out, and it allows much more time for adjusting speeds and distances. Zippering right at the constriction eliminates that time buffer required for merging, and thus forces a significant slow-down in overall traffic flow to preserve safety.

However, when you get anti-social drivers who decide to zoom up to the head of the line and cut in instead of merging back where the social merging began those cars actual stop the socially-merged lanes. After all, the total capacity is what that post-merged road can support. Now instead of everyone equally experiencing the negative aspects of the loss of capacity, you have a few asshats shifting those negative consequences to the rest of the road users. This creates a sense of being disrespected and most normal people respond negatively to that, and the result is less-efficient merging. Most people are decent, and will participate in a fair and efficient merging process before the constriction. Most of those decent people will block a Zoom-n-cutter, and rightfully so. Anti-social, psychopathic Zoom-n-cutters shouldn't be rewarded for their anti-social behavior.

Going back to left lane blockers, states are starting to enforce the laws that make it illegal for you to be in the left lane unless you're passing. Some states like Texas have also passed laws making it illegal for tractor-trailer rigs to be in the passing lane at all in major metropolitan areas. If you think that traffic vigilantism is a good idea, you will soon experience the cost of that behavior.

However, if you're a person who think that tailgating a lane blocker is a good idea, then you're also just as much of an asshat as the lane blocker. You are, in the most basic sense, using your vehicle as a weapon to threaten that driver, in the form of creating a risk of collision that you cannot avoid if the car in front of you has to suddenly brake hard. If a lane blocker brake-checks you into a collision then you deserve it. Only a psychopath uses their car as weapon to threaten and intimidate others on the road, no matter what the f*cking reason may be in your mind. There is no legitimate reason do that, none. Everyone's got a little psychopathy within them, IMHO it's a basic part of human wiring (All for ME!, ME!, ME! I got what's MINE!!!!), what makes you fully human is keeping it in check and behaving in a manner that is socially cooperative and driving in a manner that makes traveling better for everyone, not just yourself.

/rant

[Ralgha]

Well said. I don't let zoomers in when they try to cut in front of me (in my car). Pisses me off when someone else does.

[AwDang]

If you are getting passed on the right, you're doing something wrong.

[Motofool]

A real left lane squatter:

http://www.local10.com/traffic/traff...raffic-delays-

[FrugalNinja250]

Originally Posted by AwDang

If you are getting passed on the right, you're doing something wrong.

I get passed on the right on occasion, the reason always is this: I'm in the passing lane or middle lane passing cars that are slower to the right. Up ahead is an opening to the right long enough for me to merge into in order to let the asshole that's tailgating me past. Also ahead of me, 2-4 seconds (2 seconds if I'm not being tailgated, 4 seconds if I am), is the next car in my lane. As I pass the car at the back of the opening that I want to merge into I turn on my signal to let the tailgater know that I'm fixing to get out of his way.

I like to be at least 2 seconds ahead of anyone when I merge over, because science and one hundred years of driving history show that 2 seconds is about the minimum safe following distance. As I start to move over I see that the tailgater has already swerved over and gunned it, cutting off the other driver, and is now beside the rear part of my vehicle. I, of course, choose to protect that asshole from the consequences of his (or her) bad decisions and abort my lane change, swerving back into the lane to avoid a collision.

Meanwhile the entitled driver passes me on the right then swerves back into the left lane in front of me, missing my front end by distances best measured in inches rather than feet or seconds. This evolutionarily advanced driver never uses signals to let me know what his plans are, of course, because not telegraphing your intent while driving is apparently the cool thing to do on freeways today. Then that driver proceeds to tailgate the driver that was in front of me because, apparently, he believes that tailgating makes traffic flow faster and safer.

So yes, being passed on the right does indicate that I did something wrong. What did I do wrong? I didn't continue the lane change and hit the asshole making a dangerous and illegal maneuver, that's what I did wrong. I'd rather be wrong than wrecked.

Why psychopaths like that are even allowed to drive is beyond me.

[CaliGrrl]

Originally Posted by FrugalNinja250

Why psychopaths like that are even allowed to drive is beyond me.

I'm with you and I do the same thing, with the same result.

[Koala]

Originally Posted by Ralgha

Well said. I don't let zoomers in when they try to cut in front of me (in my car). Pisses me off when someone else does.

As for left lane squatters, after reading many many comments on articles like this over the years it is my belief that they know the laws but they just don't care. They think they are doing the highway patrol a favor by keeping people doing the speed limit. "it's the speed limit for a reason, you have no need to go over it" they say in their defense. They think it is their job to control everyone behind them.

[JohnnyBravo]

I just speed on past... Though I may have put a car in the ditch once; you can't prove ****

[VaFish]

Originally Posted by Koala

As for left lane squatters, after reading many many comments on articles like this over the years it is my belief that they know the laws but they just don't care. They think they are doing the highway patrol a favor by keeping people doing the speed limit. "it's the speed limit for a reason, you have no need to go over it" they say in their defense. They think it is their job to control everyone behind them.

But really torques me off is the ones doing that with un-calibrated speedometers that are really doing about 5mph under the speed limit in the left lane.

They get a real close view of this:

[JohnnyBravo]

Bet even that don't move some turds

[VaFish]

Originally Posted by JohnnyBravo

Bet even that don't move some turds

Nope, I've gotten pretty damn close to pushing people with it and they will just sit there alongside a big truck with no way to get around them.

I really want to design a small EMP projectile I can fire at their car that will fry the electronics and disable their vehicle without doing the same to mine or others around it.

[FrugalNinja250]

Originally Posted by VaFish

But really torques me off is the ones doing that with un-calibrated speedometers that are really doing about 5mph under the speed limit in the left lane.

They get a real close view of this:

So, you use your large truck with imposing bumper guard to threaten other drivers by tailgating them?

Just curious, what exactly is the effect you're trying to have, and what has been your actual experience to how others react to you doing this? I rarely get a chance to ask tailgaters why they do it and what they hope to accomplish.

[JohnnyBravo]

Originally Posted by VaFish

Nope, I've gotten pretty damn close to pushing people with it and they will just sit there alongside a big truck with no way to get around them.

I really want to design a small EMP projectile I can fire at their car that will fry the electronics and disable their vehicle without doing the same to mine or others around it.

I got a little overly grumpy one night at a turd, I didn't put him in a tree or nothing, but I'm pretty sure someone had to help him out of the grass... I often wonder if he learned anything from that experience

It works in the movies... Go for it!

[VaFish]

Originally Posted by FrugalNinja250

So, you use your large truck with imposing bumper guard to threaten other drivers by tailgating them?

Just curious, what exactly is the effect you're trying to have, and what has been your actual experience to how others react to you doing this? I rarely get a chance to ask tailgaters why they do it and what they hope to accomplish.

Usually they move out of the way.

[FrugalNinja250]

Originally Posted by VaFish

Usually they move out of the way.

So you feel that deliberately creating the risk of a collision where no risk existed before is a valid part of driving?

[VaFish]

Originally Posted by FrugalNinja250

So you feel that deliberately creating the risk of a collision where no risk existed before is a valid part of driving?

If they weren't blocking the lane in front of me there wouldn't be a risk of collision, so the other driver that is blocking the left lane is creating the risk as much or more than I am.

[allanoue]

Originally Posted by VaFish

If they weren't blocking the lane in front of me there wouldn't be a risk of collision, so the other driver that is blocking the left lane is creating the risk as much or more than I am.

Good, you do understand that you are as dangerous to the public as the people you are trying to police.

[VaFish]

Originally Posted by allanoue

Good, you do understand that you are as dangerous to the public as the people you are trying to police.

You are correct, it does take two to tango.

[allanoue]

I can not throw any stones if it were up to Jesus.

[FrugalNinja250]

Originally Posted by VaFish

If they weren't blocking the lane in front of me there wouldn't be a risk of collision, so the other driver that is blocking the left lane is creating the risk as much or more than I am.

So, if you were standing in front of someone pointing a gun your risk of being shot would be as much your responsibility as it would be theirs? Same logic, I'm just trying to understand the reasoning behind it being acceptable and appropriate to create new risk where there was none before.

Edit to add: Also, if there was someone in front of the car in front of you, would you still tailgate?

Originally Posted by VaFish

You are correct, it does take two to tango.

If one person creates risk, now both are responsible for that risk?

[RacinNinja]

Originally Posted by FrugalNinja250

Same logic, I'm just trying to understand the reasoning behind it being acceptable and appropriate to create new risk where there was none before.

No you're not.

You're trying to get him to explain so you can tear him apart and try and either change his mind or make him look like an ass.

[VaFish]

Originally Posted by FrugalNinja250

So, if you were standing in front of someone pointing a gun your risk of being shot would be as much your responsibility as it would be theirs? Same logic, I'm just trying to understand the reasoning behind it being acceptable and appropriate to create new risk where there was none before.

Edit to add: Also, if there was someone in front of the car in front of you, would you still tailgate?



If one person creates risk, now both are responsible for that risk?

Well the person I'm pointing a gun at would have had to have done something to make me point a gun at them, and it is possible they could take the gun away from me and shoot me, so yes if I am pointing a gun at someone then I am at risk of being shot as well and they are just as responsible for any outcome as I am. Kind of like if a cop points a gun at you and you start reaching in your pants for your wallet you are responsible for getting shot.

I consider a person going less then the speed limit in the left lane like contributory negligence. They have created the situation, by breaking the law in every state, and can eliminate the situation by driving courteously and legally.

If someone in front of them is driving slow it is not their fault.

[FrugalNinja250]

Originally Posted by RacinNinja

No you're not.

You're trying to get him to explain so you can tear him apart and try and either change his mind or make him look like an ass.

No, I'm trying to get him to basically say out loud to himself what he does so that he can examine his behavior in a new light, one of being part of a larger society to which he has certain responsibilities whether he wants to know it or not.

I also do want to try and understand why some would decide to endanger another person while at the same time not feeling like he's doing so. Presumably VaFish isn't a true psychopath as those are actually rarer than one might think. So, my desire to increase my understanding here is legitimate.

[VaFish]

Originally Posted by RacinNinja

or make him look like an ass.

I do that quite well by my self.

I'm sure @FrugalNinja250 has never ever tailgated someone himself.

[FrugalNinja250]

Originally Posted by VaFish

Well the person I'm pointing a gun at would have had to have done something to make me point a gun at them, and it is possible they could take the gun away from me and shoot me, so yes if I am pointing a gun at someone then I am at risk of being shot as well and they are just as responsible for any outcome as I am. Kind of like if a cop points a gun at you and you start reaching in your pants for your wallet you are responsible for getting shot.

I consider a person going less then the speed limit in the left lane like contributory negligence. They have created the situation, by breaking the law in every state, and can eliminate the situation by driving courteously and legally.

If someone in front of them is driving slow it is not their fault.

So, being in front of you in a lane where you feel you have more right to be is equivalent to seeming to go for a gun while being in front of a cop?

Also, you stated that there's a speed limit component in this, i.e. if a driver in front of you is going slower than the speed limit then they're partly responsible for any crash that may result from you tailgating them. What if they're going the speed limit? Or over the limit? Would they still be partly responsible for a collision that resulted from your tailgating?

Also, you didn't respond to the part of my question where I asked if someone was keeping the person in front of you from going any faster would you still tailgate the person in front of you?

[VaFish]

Originally Posted by FrugalNinja250

So, being in front of you in a lane where you feel you have more right to be is equivalent to seeming to go for a gun while being in front of a cop?

Also, you stated that there's a speed limit component in this, i.e. if a driver in front of you is going slower than the speed limit then they're partly responsible for any crash that may result from you tailgating them. What if they're going the speed limit? Or over the limit? Would they still be partly responsible for a collision that resulted from your tailgating?

Also, you didn't respond to the part of my question where I asked if someone was keeping the person in front of you from going any faster would you still tailgate the person in front of you?

Not following a cops directions causes problems. Breaking the law while annoying other drivers, usually intentionally, causes problems.

Yes there is a speed limit component to this, driving slower than the limit is what we have been talking about. Breaking the law by driving slower than the speed limit in the left lane makes you responsible for the accident. Driving the speed limit or faster than it does not.

Read post #27 again, I did answer your question.

[FrugalNinja250]

Originally Posted by VaFish

I do that quite well by my self.

I'm sure @FrugalNinja250 has never ever tailgated someone himself.

Actually, I used to be a tailgating road-raging screaming asshole that always did everything I could to bend people to my will while I was driving. I grew out of that decades ago for the most part, but when I started riding motorcycles in my 40's I realized just how dangerous it was to be like that. In a car one has a sense of invulnerability, but on a motorcycle you can die or be maimed extremely easily. Also, on a motorcycle being the victim of tailgating takes on a whole new dimension, because being rearended on a bike can easily leave you in a chair shitting and pissing into bags for the rest of your life, a life that would be shorter and less meaningful for me.

What I finally realized in my middle age was that using roads is a social exercise where every single person is fully responsible for helping everyone else get to their destination alive and well. The roads were built for everyone equally, not some who think they're better and more entitled than anyone else.

I don't know if VaFish uses his truck to threaten motorcyclists by tailgating them as he admits to for vehicles. I would hope not because as a rider that's the only part of riding that truly scares me. It's not the inherent risks of riding, I understand and accept those otherwise I would not be a motorcycle rider, it's the intent of others like VaFish who deliberately threaten death, injury, and damage using their vehicle.

I've been rear-ended four times in my life, twice by tailgaters. I have permanent debilitating neck and back injuries as a result. Every morning I wake up in pain, and every night I go to sleep in pain. Sure, I got many thousands of dollars in cash settlements, but I would gladly give up all of that to just have one day without pain.

VaFish and others like him just don't understand the consequences of their actions. They're willing to kill or maim someone just to save literally one or two seconds on their commute.

One or two seconds.

If only the people so in favor of tailgating would spend half that level of effort defending it toward something that benefited society at large, this world would be a better place indeed.

[3ØØ]

Originally Posted by FrugalNinja250

I'm just trying to understand the reasoning behind it being acceptable and appropriate to create new risk where there was none before.

none beforehand?

someone failed comprehension of the article and video

[FrugalNinja250]

Originally Posted by VaFish

Read post #27 again, I did answer your question.

Originally Posted by VaFish

If someone in front of them is driving slow it is not their fault.

But would you still tailgate them?

[FrugalNinja250]

Originally Posted by 3ØØ

none beforehand?

someone failed comprehension of the article and video

Oh, I read the article and watched the video. A left lane blocker creates a situation where aggressive drivers start doing things that increase the risk of a collision. Basically they're saying that triggering an aggressive driver's behavior obviates the aggressive driver from responsibility.

If a person is maintaining a safe following distance, commonly defined as 2 or more seconds, then the risk of the following driver colliding with the leading driver is minimal. If the following driver, of their own free will and volition, make the conscious decision to decrease that following distance to an unsafe one, that decision is wholly the responsibility of the following driver.

Otherwise what you would be saying is that the leading driver is controlling the following driver like a puppeteer controls a puppet, thereby rendering the following driver incapable of being in control of their own actions. That would also assume that the following driver had a desire to avoid this risk, but was unable to act upon that desire and was tailgating against their will.

[VaFish]

Originally Posted by FrugalNinja250

But would you still tailgate them?

No

and I've had people tailgate me when they couldn't see around my truck that there was a slower person in front of me. One made me chuckle, he had a little car, got right up on my bumper, then hit his high beams. White truck, big chrome rear bumper, didn't affect me at all.

[allanoue]

Originally Posted by FrugalNinja250

But would you still tailgate them?

VaFish answer is clearly no, why do you not acknowledge that you are clearly smart enough to know he answered.

[VaFish]

Originally Posted by FrugalNinja250

Otherwise what you would be saying is that the leading driver is controlling the following driver like a puppeteer controls a puppet, thereby rendering the following driver incapable of being in control of their own actions. That would also assume that the following driver had a desire to avoid this risk, but was unable to act upon that desire and was tailgating against their will.

No that's not what I am saying at all. Re-read my posts. I said the leading driver contributes to and has some responsibility for any accident. Like contributory negligence. They have also broken the law and are partially responsible for any accident.

[3ØØ]

^so if someone is doing 55 in the left lane in a 55mph zone, i am considered aggressive because i am doing 60 and want them to stop lane blocking(which is illegal in many states)?

its funny how these lane blockers logic works. they will tell you slow down, you are speeding and breaking the law, at the same time they are lane blocking/breaking the law their damn selves. hi kettle, im pot!

[VaFish]

Originally Posted by 3ØØ

^so if someone is doing 55 in the left lane in a 55mph zone, i am considered aggressive because i am doing 60 and want them to stop lane blocking(which is illegal in many states)?

its funny how these lane blockers logic works. they will tell you slow down, you are speeding and breaking the law, at the same time they are lane blocking/breaking the law their damn selves. hi kettle, im pot!

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just saying I don't get right up on their ass if they are doing the speed limit.

I agree it is funny how their brains work. Everyone wants to act like it is the aggressive drivers fault, but no one wants to fix the passive aggressive drivers who think it's ok for them to impede everyone else.