WA state patrol pulling people over for going to slow....cool.

[Superman]

In Europe, drivers and vehicles are required to meet certain performance and capability requirements. In order to obtain a driver's license in most European countries, you must first demonstrate you can safely operate a motor vehicle, and you must be well-versed in the legal and practical details of motoring.

In America, if you're seventeen years old and you have about $30, you can be driving by the end of the day. Virtually no requirement to demonstrate proficiency. You can, as we all know, be blissfully ignorant of traffic laws and still maintain a driver's license. I think this is a problem. Of course, the car companies and the oil companies don't see a problem, but I do. And since the oil companies and car companies are basically in charge here, I think we can forget about proficiency testing.

[Superman]

I mean......there's the safety issue and then there is the money/commerce issue. We all know where America places its priorities where these two choices compete.

[Seric]

Finally.

[john70t]

From the artical: "It just takes one thing to set them off," Leary said of frustrated drivers stuck behind slower moving vehicles. "If we can alleviate one of those things, maybe we can avoid an assault."

I'm no LL squatter, and agree with the ticketing, but the rational is seriously warped.
When did it become ethically or legally acceptable to use your vehicle to commit assault and/or murder?
So: "I can kill you because I am late and can't schedule my day" attitude is ok with you guys?

They police need to be even handed in solving the problem- Ticket the squatters, but ticket the reckless drivers. In Germany you can't even gesture or give bad faces to other drivers, much less tailgate at 80mph.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Originally Posted by Superman

In Europe, drivers and vehicles are required to meet certain performance and capability requirements. In order to obtain a driver's license in most European countries, you must first demonstrate you can safely operate a motor vehicle, and you must be well-versed in the legal and practical details of motoring.

In America, if you're seventeen years old and you have about $30, you can be driving by the end of the day. Virtually no requirement to demonstrate proficiency. You can, as we all know, be blissfully ignorant of traffic laws and still maintain a driver's license. I think this is a problem. Of course, the car companies and the oil companies don't see a problem, but I do. And since the oil companies and car companies are basically in charge here, I think we can forget about proficiency testing.

100% agreed.

However, do you HONESTLY think this is ever going to change?

Too many people make way too much money getting (and keeping) people dependent on cars. Car manufacturers, car dealerships, insurers, banks/financiers, parts manufacturers, the oil/gas companies (obviously), etc.

Enough politicians are in the back pockets of one/more of these "big money" players such that meaningful change will never occur. Add to the mix the deliberate and systematic killing of appropriations for decent public transit and you get exactly what you describe - a society that will dole out licenses to any buffoon who can fog a mirror. Because there's too much $$$ at stake to deny them.

Governments make way too much off this too. They LOVE IT when people buy cars - particularly new cars. With high taxes and fees associated with them.

Everyone wins when people drive - except the drivers.

[teenerted1]

Originally Posted by barndoor

I live in Oregon,used to live in Washington.This is a big problem,Washington drivers driving through Oregon will not get out of the "Passing Lane" no matter what.
Last week Washington made it Illegal to drive while talking on a Cell phone,now this.
Maybe there is hope for driving in the USA.

actually the HANDS FREE device rule takes effect next month, and it is a secondary offense. you will still be able use a phone but you need an ear-bud/blue tooth or some other kind of voice activated thing. also you can use a normal cel phone in an emergency.

so get off the phone and move over. or the man will get you for being a slowpoke and then slap you again for trying to call in on the guy that passed you on the right



when i lived in Colorado, people there understood the flashing in the passing lane, meant to move over. hey buddy I'm doing 85 in a 60 and i don't wanna slow down

but now when i drive out there fewer and fewer drivers have a clue what you are trying to tell them.

[john walker's workshop]

so i'm going to get a ticket when i drive 65 in the right lane and everyone else pulls up behind then pulls out to pass? damn.

[john70t]

I go out of my way to avoid confrontation, and try to be a curtious driver to pedestrians and all vehicles alike, but there's no excuse for reckless driving, followed by assault, or threat of such. None.

More than once some jerk in an SUV or truck has begun to threaten me in my cute little Subaru.

[john70t]

The problem goes back to the 50's with the Highway Act.
-Residential areas spread out requiring great travel distances and the means(aka cars).
-Daily life became more complex, and travel speeds increased, as well as expectations.
-Demand for leeway overcame supply and begot the traffic jam. Enter "present day" stage left.

So in response, personal vehicles became faster and larger? Who is actually pushing that ideology? There needs to be a serious reality check with many Americans. Mabye the oil crunch will have some effect, but all this compensating just puts a bandaid ontop of a bandaid.

When 1/4 of daily thought processes and energies with the average American worker are consumed by getting from point "A" to point "B", productivity suffers.

[David]

Texas has a similar law but I've never seen it enforced

They have left lane is for passing only signs, but they don't mention it's the law and I guess most people don't realize white signs, like speed limit signs, are the law.

[DARISC]

Hasn't the CHP (CA) done that that here (CA) for a long time now?

[MRM]

I remember years ago I was driving my wife's ancient VW Rabbit in the center lane of the interstate just north of Minneapolis. I was going the speed limit, because that was as fast as I could go safely, when a guy came up behind me going a good 15-20 mph over. I moved into his lane and cut him off so he couldn't speed by me.

He was furious until he saw the unmarked State Trooper a car length ahead of me in the right hand lane.

[Shadetree930]

So hard to find good news these days, thanks for that.

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by MRM

I remember years ago I was driving my wife's ancient VW Rabbit in the center lane of the interstate just north of Minneapolis. I was going the speed limit, because that was as fast as I could go safely, when a guy came up behind me going a good 15-20 mph over. I moved into his lane and cut him off so he couldn't speed by me.

He was furious until he saw the unmarked State Trooper a car length ahead of me in the right hand lane.

*********!

[teenerted1]

Originally Posted by MRM

I remember years ago I was driving my wife's ancient VW Rabbit in the center lane of the interstate just north of Minneapolis. I was going the speed limit, because that was as fast as I could go safely, when a guy came up behind me going a good 15-20 mph over. I moved into his lane and cut him off so he couldn't speed by me.

He was furious until he saw the unmarked State Trooper a car length ahead of me in the right hand lane.

that is the kind of action this enforcement is meant to stop.

if the guy is speeding and get stopped by the trooper its his own fault.

you do know that your actions could also get you a ticket since you were not supposed to be going that slow in the PASSING LANE. at that speed you should have been in the right hand lane following the trooper minding your own business. and if the trooper saw your actions it would be his duty to pull you over for impeding the flow of traffic.

how would you feel if the just slammed into the back of you?

vigilante traffic enforcement has no place on our roads.

[Moses]

Originally Posted by teenerted1

vigilante traffic enforcement has no place on our roads.

I think you missed the point. He was helping the guy avoid a speeding ticket.

[Noah930]

MRM can speak for himself, but that's not the way I read his account. He wasn't trying to be some self-rightous enforcer of the speed limit. Rather, he was trying to save the guy from getting a speeding ticket. A bit of a difference in intent, there.

I agree that the action, itself, may not have been a great idea. What if said speeder ran him over? I probably wouldn't have done it, myself. But it sounds like what MRM did was out of kind heart, not maliciousness.

[MRM]

I can't remember exactly what year it happened, but I was either a prosecutor in Minneapolis or had just left that office, so, yes, I'm aware of the traffic rules. No, no one's safety was compromised. If you want the full story, I was coming south on 35W just as it takes a big sweeping turn from west to south just north of the downtown Minneapolis exit. I was in the center lane, the cop was a car length or two ahead of me in the right lane, and the left was open. I always drive looking in all my mirrors because I'm worried about some idiot coming out of nowhere and pasting me, so I saw the guy coming around the inside of the sweeper as soon as his car was visible. I could tell immediately that he was going to blast by me without seeing the cop. So I had plenty of time. I didn't cut him off in the usual sense. I turned on my blinkers, could see he saw them, and got into the left lane. He didn't have to slam on his brakes, but he did have to slow down. I'm unaware of any law in Minnesota that makes my conduct illegal. I don't apologize for reminding people to obey the law without the necessity of a ticket. The point of traffic enforcement is to get people to obey the law.

After he saw the cop I pulled back in the center lane, he waved, and we both moved on.

[Jeff Higgins]

This has actually been the law in Washington State for as long as I can remember. This is not a new law by any means. I would rather suspect it is law in virtually all other states as well.

What is significant about this, and just so happens to be related to a major pet peeve of mine, is that the State Patrol has just now decided to start really enforcing this law. My pet peeve concerning these increased enforcements is this: we, the people, have a system in place through which laws are written. The legislative process. We, the people, charter and fund various agencies to oversee and enforce those laws and regulations. Then those very agencies turn around and decide, for themselves, which of our laws or regulations are important enough to them to enforce. Does anyone else see anything wrong with this?

Granted, I'm happy to see they have finally decided to enforce this. But how did they skate so long without enforcing it? And now their stated motivation for enforcing this is to reduce road rage??? They don't even mention the safety factor. Yet speeding is "dangerous"?

[Noah930]

Going too fast is dangerous. Going too slow is dangerous. The State Police/Big Brother will tell you what is for your own good. The sooner you get this and conform, Jeff, the less painful it will be for you and your kind.