On Topic? Cars, anyway: 55 MPH speed limit...

"Mortimer" > kirjoitti
viestissä:MLOdnXLWqIaCohXVnZ2dnUVZ8tSdnZ2d@posted. plusnet...
....
> As a matter of interest, in the USA are large articulated trucks
> (heavy goods vehicles - HGVs - in UK parlance) legally restricted to a
> lower limit than other vehicles? In the UK they are mechanically
> restricted to 56 mph (ie 80 km/hr) which can lead to the dreaded
> "lorry leapfrog" as truck 1 doing 56 comes up behind truck 2 doing 55
> (due to tolerances in the settings of the speed limiters) and decides
> to overtake it at a differential speed of 1 mph. Consequently all the
> traffic behind it in Lane 2 is suddenly reduced to 56 for the several
> miles that it takes for truck 1 to complete its manoevre. Lo and
> behold, a few miles further on they'll come to a hill and truck 2
> (which happens to have a more powerful engine and therefore isn't
> slowed as much by the gradient) will overtake truck 1, taking forever
> and a day - and so it goes on. In a car, you might temporarily exceed
> the speed limit to make sure you got past quickly, but HGVs don't have
> that option.

Trucks have speed limiters also in Finland (probably in whole EU) --
though the limiters here are set AFAIK to 88 km/h.

I've been always wondering why truck drivers all the time MUST get to
drive as fast as the limiter allows. Would it really destroy their
schedules if they would decide to just happily stay behind if the
vehicle in front doesn't drive over 5 km/h slower than would be that
truck's maximum?

....Hmm. Or are they actually doing so, and it just looks to an average
driver that a truck overtakes another one so slowly that the difference
must be minimal?

P.V.

Brent P wrote:
> On 2008-07-24, Leftie > wrote:
>> Brent P wrote:
>>> On 2008-07-24, Leftie > wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've always supported 55, as long as you can go 60 and be left
>>>> alone.
>>> So long as the cops don't bother those driving at your chosen speed. How
>>> absurd a standard.
>
>> The standard is perfectly reasonable, and long-standing. It's to
>> account for both speedometer error and people momentarily drifting above
>> the limit. I use cruise control and know my speedometer error, so I can
>> set it for 60 and know I'll be going 58. You're the one being absurd.
>
> Upper bound speed limits are not to be set because of what somebody feels
> is 'right'. Neither should having a armed government employee stop you
> on the side of road under the threat of violence be determined by his
> personal speed tolerances.
>
> Google 85th percentile method to see how speed limits should be set.
>
>>>> I do 58-60 in the center lane on my commute (lots of off-ramps in
>>>> the right lane) and idiots keep passing me on *both* sides. Americans
>>>> are stupid.
>
>>> That may be true generally but in this case you're driving in the wrong
>>> lane. Keep right except to pass. If you can't deal with the merge
>>> impaired go fast enough so you aren't being passed on the right.
>
>> This is how we got into the current situation: being told to crowd
>> into the right-hand lane to make more room for speeders.
>
> *sigh* A sign with an absurdly low number on it is not a license to
> drive poorly.
>
>> On a 3 lane
>> highway with off-ramps on the right, the right lane should be for those
>> going below the limit, including those exiting or entering from ramps.
>
> WRONG. It's supposed to be the normal cruising lane. It was before the
> NMSL idiotcy of 55mph and still is.
>
>> The center lane should be for cruising at the limit or so,
>
> WRONG. It's for passing people in the right lane.
>
>> and the left lane for passing and emergency vehicles.
>
> Somewhat WRONG. It's for passing people in the middle lane.
>
>> This allows for the optimum
>> flow of traffic and for maximum safety.
>
> No it does not. Optimum flow and maximum safety is achieved by a strict
> keep right except to pass discipline. This is why the autobahn is safer
> than the US interstate and much better to drive.
>
>> But that's just too sensible for this dumbass country...
>
> Actually most of those dumbasses are driving just like you, except they
> have a different idea of where the speed cut offs for each lane are.
> That's why your idea is pure bunk.
>
> Keep right except to pass is pure simplicity. It works like fluid flow
> in a pipe. It makes for an engineered system. Your idea is a complex
> social interaction that cannot scale. That's why it breaks down so
> quickly with increased traffic volumes. Too many people with different
> social ideas of what speed each lane should be.
>

This and your other post make it pretty clear that you are the
highway equivalent of a Gun Nut. You don't care that the 55 limit saves
both fuel and lives, and you think that the roads exist to allow people
to drive fast, with those following rational speed limits expected to
just get out of your way.

Google "plonk."

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 09:34:54 +0100, "Mortimer" > wrote:

>
>Interesting how different countries have different rules about this. In the
>UK, the "keep left" and "no undertaking" rules on motorways are drummed into
>every new driver and the police will stop people (if they have nothing more
>urgent to attend to) to enforce this.
>
Pretty much the same here on keeping to the right. If your speed is
excessive you may get pinched for passing on the right, but I do it
often at the speed limit or a little above to pass a slowpoke driving
left of me on a 2-lane.
Keeping right becomes more of an issue on a 3-lane with cars entering
and exiting the right lane. In some urban areas exits/entrances are
an 1/8 of a mile apart and in constant speed flux.
As you may have seen in this thread, there are many "cowboys" here.
For instance those that insist that you move right from the middle
lane into a gap in the entry/exit lane where traffic might be
averaging 50, perhaps downhill, between a heavily loaded semi-truck
slowing for exit while a lightly loaded one is barreling down the
entrance ramp behind him, while you are doing 65 and the limit is 55.
Why do they insist you enter this dangerous vise? Because they want
to do 70 in your lane, and you are in the way.
The driving situation doesn't matter to them. You should move right
between the trucks because their little pea-brain says so.
These are often the same sort of people who tail-gate and engage in
other unsafe activities. But they fancy themselves race car drivers.

>You still get people crawling along at 50-60 in the Lane 2 on a deserted
>motorway late at night: it's very annoying to be driving quite correctly in
>Lane 1 and have to move over two lanes to pass the slow vehicle and then
>move back two lanes to where you were.
>
I sometimes do that only because of my own safety, as you are more
likely to be seen overtaking from the driver's side mirror.

>Mind you in the UK, it's fairly rare for Lane 1 to be for the exclusive use
>of traffic leaving the motorway at a junction - this is only done at a
>minority of very busy junctions and is very well signposted in advance so
>people going straight on can move over into Lane 2 and don't get shunted off
>at the junction.
>
Same here.

>I'm not sure what other countries' laws are about undertaking (ie overtaking
>on the opposite side to the driver's side).
>
Not quite sure it's enforced here - never seen it happen - but it is
at least a general rule.

>As a matter of interest, in the USA are large articulated trucks (heavy
>goods vehicles - HGVs - in UK parlance) legally restricted to a lower limit
>than other vehicles? In the UK they are mechanically restricted to 56 mph
>(ie 80 km/hr) which can lead to the dreaded "lorry leapfrog" as truck 1
>doing 56 comes up behind truck 2 doing 55 (due to tolerances in the settings
>of the speed limiters) and decides to overtake it at a differential speed of
>1 mph. Consequently all the traffic behind it in Lane 2 is suddenly reduced
>to 56 for the several miles that it takes for truck 1 to complete its
>manoevre. Lo and behold, a few miles further on they'll come to a hill and
>truck 2 (which happens to have a more powerful engine and therefore isn't
>slowed as much by the gradient) will overtake truck 1, taking forever and a
>day - and so it goes on. In a car, you might temporarily exceed the speed
>limit to make sure you got past quickly, but HGVs don't have that option.
>
Some states have lower limits for trucks, but they are generally
ignored by the truckers. Some areas have an extra lane on an upgrade
for trucks to pull into. There are some special lanes and run-offs
for trucks on steep downgrades, in case of failing brakes.
But one truck slowly overtaking a second on a 2-lane and backing up
traffic is fairly common.

--Vic

"Leftie" > wrote in message
...
> Brent P wrote:
>> On 2008-07-24, Leftie > wrote:
>>
>>> I've always supported 55, as long as you can go 60 and be left
>>> alone.
>>
>> So long as the cops don't bother those driving at your chosen speed. How
>> absurd a standard.
>
>
> The standard is perfectly reasonable, and long-standing. It's to
> account for both speedometer error and people momentarily drifting above
> the limit. I use cruise control and know my speedometer error, so I can
> set it for 60 and know I'll be going 58. You're the one being absurd.
>
>
>
>>
>>> I do 58-60 in the center lane on my commute (lots of off-ramps in the
>>> right lane) and idiots keep passing me on *both* sides. Americans are
>>> stupid.
>>
>> That may be true generally but in this case you're driving in the wrong
>> lane. Keep right except to pass. If you can't deal with the merge
>> impaired go fast enough so you aren't being passed on the right.
> This is how we got into the current situation: being told to crowd into
> the right-hand lane to make more room for speeders. On a 3 lane highway
> with off-ramps on the right, the right lane should be for those going
> below the limit, including those exiting or entering from ramps. The
> center lane should be for cruising at the limit or so, and the left lane
> for passing and emergency vehicles. This allows for the optimum flow of
> traffic and for maximum safety. But that's just too sensible for this
> dumbass country...
>

You must be the Cornjulio that clogs up the middle lane on the I-290. And
you'll note I honk dididahdit dididah as I pass you on the RIGHT. (And don't
even THINK about stealing my toilet paper!)

The left lane is Rock and Roll. The Easy Listening lane is over on the
shoulder. Especially in Chicago.

As I've often said, there are two kinds of drivers on Chicago expressways:
The Quick and The Dead. You ain't quick. You're actually a traffic
obstacle. Especially on some of the tollways, where the average speed is 75
at times.

I thought 55 was a stupid idea. Even when I was driving my 1501 (One of
those $3748 1979 Toyota Corolla specials, no carpet, no 5th gear, a little
1.2 engine.) I still was going faster than that, although getting her over
65 was tough.

You're not absurd, you're one of those traffic turds that end up causing
others to get into accidents.

Charles the Curmudgeon.

"Leftie" > wrote in message
...
> Brent P wrote:
>> On 2008-07-24, Leftie > wrote:
>>> Brent P wrote:
>>>> On 2008-07-24, Leftie > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I've always supported 55, as long as you can go 60 and be left
>>>>> alone.
>>>> So long as the cops don't bother those driving at your chosen speed.
>>>> How
>>>> absurd a standard.
>>
>>> The standard is perfectly reasonable, and long-standing. It's to
>>> account for both speedometer error and people momentarily drifting above
>>> the limit. I use cruise control and know my speedometer error, so I can
>>> set it for 60 and know I'll be going 58. You're the one being absurd.
>>
>> Upper bound speed limits are not to be set because of what somebody feels
>> is 'right'. Neither should having a armed government employee stop you
>> on the side of road under the threat of violence be determined by his
>> personal speed tolerances. Google 85th percentile method to see how speed
>> limits should be set.
>>>>> I do 58-60 in the center lane on my commute (lots of off-ramps in the
>>>>> right lane) and idiots keep passing me on *both* sides. Americans are
>>>>> stupid.
>>
>>>> That may be true generally but in this case you're driving in the wrong
>>>> lane. Keep right except to pass. If you can't deal with the merge
>>>> impaired go fast enough so you aren't being passed on the right.
>>
>>> This is how we got into the current situation: being told to crowd
>>> into the right-hand lane to make more room for speeders.
>>
>> *sigh* A sign with an absurdly low number on it is not a license to
>> drive poorly.
>>> On a 3 lane highway with off-ramps on the right, the right lane should
>>> be for those going below the limit, including those exiting or entering
>>> from ramps.
>>
>> WRONG. It's supposed to be the normal cruising lane. It was before the
>> NMSL idiotcy of 55mph and still is.
>>> The center lane should be for cruising at the limit or so,
>>
>> WRONG. It's for passing people in the right lane.
>>> and the left lane for passing and emergency vehicles.
>>
>> Somewhat WRONG. It's for passing people in the middle lane.
>>> This allows for the optimum flow of traffic and for maximum safety.
>>
>> No it does not. Optimum flow and maximum safety is achieved by a strict
>> keep right except to pass discipline. This is why the autobahn is safer
>> than the US interstate and much better to drive.
>>> But that's just too sensible for this dumbass country...
>>
>> Actually most of those dumbasses are driving just like you, except they
>> have a different idea of where the speed cut offs for each lane are.
>> That's why your idea is pure bunk. Keep right except to pass is pure
>> simplicity. It works like fluid flow
>> in a pipe. It makes for an engineered system. Your idea is a complex
>> social interaction that cannot scale. That's why it breaks down so
>> quickly with increased traffic volumes. Too many people with different
>> social ideas of what speed each lane should be.
>
> This and your other post make it pretty clear that you are the highway
> equivalent of a Gun Nut. You don't care that the 55 limit saves both fuel
> and lives, and you think that the roads exist to allow people to drive
> fast, with those following rational speed limits expected to just get out
> of your way.
>
> Google "plonk."

Hmm, it's obvious you are a Leftie. Probably an Obama-supporter too.
Making up your own special rules just for you and let the great unwashed be
damned. Did you notice the signs all over the expressways? Hmmmm? In
Illinois it says: "Slower traffic keep right." (In some states, it's "Keep
right except to pass")

Oh, that's right. You're a Leftie, you're special and the rules don't apply
to you.

Speed limits aren't usually set up for safety, they're set up for revenue
anymore. Any decent car built in the last 25 years can do 65 and not even
break a sweat. Even my old white KE30 could do it.

And a PLOINK to you too.

Charles the Curmudgeon
Dididahdit dididah.

"Mortimer" > wrote in message
et...
> Interesting how different countries have different rules about this. In
> the UK, the "keep left" and "no undertaking" rules on motorways are
> drummed into every new driver and the police will stop people (if they
> have nothing more urgent to attend to) to enforce this.
>

Since we drive on the other side of the road in the US, we keep right, and
no passing on the right, but on expressways this is SELDOM enforced.

> You still get people crawling along at 50-60 in the Lane 2 on a deserted
> motorway late at night: it's very annoying to be driving quite correctly
> in Lane 1 and have to move over two lanes to pass the slow vehicle and
> then move back two lanes to where you were.
>

> Mind you in the UK, it's fairly rare for Lane 1 to be for the exclusive
> use of traffic leaving the motorway at a junction - this is only done at a
> minority of very busy junctions and is very well signposted in advance so
> people going straight on can move over into Lane 2 and don't get shunted
> off at the junction.
>

In the US it's also rare, but the idiots don't know how to get off and/or
merge nice. I have to get over one lane usually around a junction to miss
the sudden parcel of vehicles going 10-20 below the limit getting off and
getting on. Some of the older on ramps are poorly engineered and not long
enough for a decent car to get up to traffic speed, even if you GUN it.

> I'm not sure what other countries' laws are about undertaking (ie
> overtaking on the opposite side to the driver's side).
>
> As a matter of interest, in the USA are large articulated trucks (heavy
> goods vehicles - HGVs - in UK parlance) legally restricted to a lower
> limit than other vehicles? In the UK they are mechanically restricted to
> 56 mph (ie 80 km/hr) which can lead to the dreaded "lorry leapfrog" as
> truck 1 doing 56 comes up behind truck 2 doing 55 (due to tolerances in
> the settings of the speed limiters) and decides to overtake it at a
> differential speed of 1 mph. Consequently all the traffic behind it in
> Lane 2 is suddenly reduced to 56 for the several miles that it takes for
> truck 1 to complete its manoevre. Lo and behold, a few miles further on
> they'll come to a hill and truck 2 (which happens to have a more powerful
> engine and therefore isn't slowed as much by the gradient) will overtake
> truck 1, taking forever and a day - and so it goes on. In a car, you might
> temporarily exceed the speed limit to make sure you got past quickly, but
> HGVs don't have that option.
>

The restrictons on truck tractors pulling semi trailers (articulated
lorries) vary from state to state, which is why no one has a 'governor'
holding them down.

Illinois limits all trucks over 8,000 lbs, all vehicles towing trailers, and
all recreational vehicles to 55 miles per hour. (That's an improvement.
Until 1973, they used to be restricted to 50 / 60 / 65 in that order.)

Over in Kentucky the single speed limit on most open Interstate roads is 70
mph. In Indiana it's 65. In Wisconsin it's 65.
> On a road with at least 3 lanes, there is at least an extra lane for cars
> to get past, but on two-lane roads you are stuck :-(
>
> There's an infamous 2-lane road (the A34) that carries all the HGVs that
> have come from mainland Europe north from Southampton Docks to the
> Midlands (eg Birmingham) and there are sections which have gentle hills
>[*] as they go over a ridge. When I used to come that way to work, it was
> rare to get above 55 for the 20 miles that I drive on it, because every
> time I overtook a lorry, another sodding one would pull out in front of
> me. The road really does need to be upgraded to 3 lanes - or else the law
> needs to be changed to ban HGVs from overtaking unless they can complete
> the manouevre within a few seconds.
>
>[*] Well, they are gentle to a car which can maintain 70-80 up them but
> they force underpowered HGVs down to around 40.
>

We've had to improve the power on some of our larger straight trucks and
truck-tractors. There's so much traffic in places out west, that if they
had to work down to 15 mph to crest a hill, there would be a huge line of
cars behind waiting to pass. And yes there are hills that bad over here.
Go drive the I-75 east of Chattenooga some time, but mind the brakes,
they'll get hot going east. And watch your temp gauge going west, it's a
long uphill grade, even some cars have issues with it.

Charles the Curmudgeon.

Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B wrote:

>It's interesting to see how many people in this group and others
>support the 55 MPH speed limit.
>
>The question is, where the hell are you on the highway?!?!?!
>If 55 MPH is supposed to save fuel, and the speed limit is currently
>65 MPH in most places, then why, when I'm doing my usual 68-70 MPH,
>am I getting my damn doors blown off?!?!?!
>
>I guess complaining and crying is good, until it effects you...
>
>(Of all the cars I was sharing the highway with, I passed 3 of them.
>Everyone else was passing me...over 70-75 MPH)

The right lane has become the new left lane. Everyone drives in the
left lane these days so I just stay in the right lane, even when
creeping along at traffic jams and always move ahead of anyone in the
center/left lanes.

In my mind what you describe is due to the self-centeredness pervasive
in society today. People don't care about anyone else and just want to
set the cruise control to travel. They know they should move over when
someone is behind them or there is an opening on the right but that
means they'll have to set the cruise again! Or they are acting as
police because they think it's not fair that someone can go faster than
them and not get caught.

Sharing the road means more than one getting their way, it means
allowing others to pass you if they want to go faster also.

On 2008-07-24, Leftie > wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> On 2008-07-24, Leftie > wrote:
>>> Brent P wrote:
>>>> On 2008-07-24, Leftie > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I've always supported 55, as long as you can go 60 and be left
>>>>> alone.
>>>> So long as the cops don't bother those driving at your chosen speed. How
>>>> absurd a standard.
>>
>>> The standard is perfectly reasonable, and long-standing. It's to
>>> account for both speedometer error and people momentarily drifting above
>>> the limit. I use cruise control and know my speedometer error, so I can
>>> set it for 60 and know I'll be going 58. You're the one being absurd.
>>
>> Upper bound speed limits are not to be set because of what somebody feels
>> is 'right'. Neither should having a armed government employee stop you
>> on the side of road under the threat of violence be determined by his
>> personal speed tolerances.
>>
>> Google 85th percentile method to see how speed limits should be set.
>>
>>>>> I do 58-60 in the center lane on my commute (lots of off-ramps in
>>>>> the right lane) and idiots keep passing me on *both* sides. Americans
>>>>> are stupid.
>>
>>>> That may be true generally but in this case you're driving in the wrong
>>>> lane. Keep right except to pass. If you can't deal with the merge
>>>> impaired go fast enough so you aren't being passed on the right.
>>
>>> This is how we got into the current situation: being told to crowd
>>> into the right-hand lane to make more room for speeders.
>>
>> *sigh* A sign with an absurdly low number on it is not a license to
>> drive poorly.
>>
>>> On a 3 lane
>>> highway with off-ramps on the right, the right lane should be for those
>>> going below the limit, including those exiting or entering from ramps.
>>
>> WRONG. It's supposed to be the normal cruising lane. It was before the
>> NMSL idiotcy of 55mph and still is.
>>
>>> The center lane should be for cruising at the limit or so,
>>
>> WRONG. It's for passing people in the right lane.
>>
>>> and the left lane for passing and emergency vehicles.
>>
>> Somewhat WRONG. It's for passing people in the middle lane.
>>
>>> This allows for the optimum
>>> flow of traffic and for maximum safety.
>>
>> No it does not. Optimum flow and maximum safety is achieved by a strict
>> keep right except to pass discipline. This is why the autobahn is safer
>> than the US interstate and much better to drive.
>>
>>> But that's just too sensible for this dumbass country...
>>
>> Actually most of those dumbasses are driving just like you, except they
>> have a different idea of where the speed cut offs for each lane are.
>> That's why your idea is pure bunk.
>>
>> Keep right except to pass is pure simplicity. It works like fluid flow
>> in a pipe. It makes for an engineered system. Your idea is a complex
>> social interaction that cannot scale. That's why it breaks down so
>> quickly with increased traffic volumes. Too many people with different
>> social ideas of what speed each lane should be.
>>
>
> This and your other post make it pretty clear that you are the
> highway equivalent of a Gun Nut.

Heaven forbid I would like to see people drive properly.

> You don't care that the 55 limit saves both fuel and lives,

It does neither. In 1974 when the NMSL was put in, the method of
counting fatalities changed. All but the usual year over year drop was
due to the change in method. When it was removed in 1995 states that
raised their speed limits saw a larger drop than those that did not.

> and you think that the roads exist to allow people
> to drive fast, with those following rational speed limits expected to
> just get out of your way.

No, you're an ignorant control freak who thinks that everyone else
should be forced to drive his speed by the threat of violence from the
government. (everything the government does is ultimately backed by
violent acts, such as imprisonment)

> Google "plonk."

Another closed minded fool causing congestion. Good riddence.

On 2008-07-24, CharlesTheCurmudgeon > wrote:
> As I've often said, there are two kinds of drivers on Chicago expressways:
> The Quick and The Dead. You ain't quick. You're actually a traffic
> obstacle. Especially on some of the tollways, where the average speed is 75
> at times.

I've experienced I294 where 90mph would make one of the 'slow'. Autobahn
speeds with the chaos and rudeness of american drivers. The speed isn't
the problem of course, 90mph is perfectly safe if it wasn't for the LLBs
etc.

> I thought 55 was a stupid idea. Even when I was driving my 1501 (One of
> those $3748 1979 Toyota Corolla specials, no carpet, no 5th gear, a little
> 1.2 engine.) I still was going faster than that, although getting her over
> 65 was tough.

55mph was really never obeyed in any meaningful way. Part of the reason
the NMSL was eventually repealed is it got more and more difficult for
the states to cook the books. The feds kept allowing greater and greater
mathmatical gymnastics but the states still couldn't show the public was
obeying it.

On 2008-07-24, Leftie > wrote:
> wrote:
>>> I've always supported 55, as long as you can go 60 and be left
>>> alone. I do 58-60 in the center lane on my commute (lots of off-ramps in
>>> the right lane) and idiots keep passing me on *both* sides. Americans
>>> are stupid.
>>
>> Some people can't get the hint (being passed on the right). It would
>> be nice if cops could give a ticket for a mandatory refresher course
>> at the DMV.
>
>
> Speaking of "mandatory refresher courses": speeding in the right
> lane is illegal, while going within a few mph of the speed limit in the
> center lane of a 3 lane highway is considered legal - by the sane,
> anyway. If speeders want to "hint" that driving legally is unacceptable,
> then perhaps they are the ones who need that refresher course.

I love how you control freaks justify your actions... you're just a
little over the number on the sign so you're okay.... This is just the
kind of thinking that the NMSL brought about. Carlin had piece about
this mentality. If the speed limits were set properly to the 85th
percentile this way of thinking would die out.

> * Where I live there are no "Keep Right" signs on 3 lane highways.
> There are "slower traffic keep right" signs on uphill stretches, but
> believe it or not they mean "slower than the speed limit", not "slower
> than the dumbasses who want to speed in traffic."

*LOL* same old mental gymnastics of the 'speed kills' control freak. No,
it means what it says, SLOWER, slower than other vehicles, mr. law is
law except when it's me going faster by a 'reasonable' amount. LOL.

> * While newer cars are indeed capable of safely going faster than
> 55MPH, the highways are filled with drivers who aren't, and it's the
> weakest link that determines the safety of a chain, not the strongest.
> Most trucks and buses, and all tandem trucks, are barely safe at 55MPH.

Newer? My 1973 Ford was built when the speed limits were 70-75mph!
You're idea of 'newer' must be anything built after WW2.

> * Where there are only four lanes I keep right. It's amazing all the
> things people read into posts that aren't actually *in* them. I guess it
> helps them justify their own reckless, wasteful driving.

You follow all the other typical thought of a speed kills control freak
it's no big leap that you follow the rest.