do you speed?

[TheMalcolmConnection]

I can understand that. The fact that you know it's wrong is better than people who feel like they have the "right" to do it.

Did you go to VMI or W&L?

[Monksdown]

Think lower SAT scores and hazing.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Ahhhhh. Gotcha. I work in IT at W&L. Office is right next door to VMI.

[Hog1]

I cheat to 10 over. More than that, I cannot deal with the ticket. If I could cheat to 20over.......I would.
I think I'll go check out the Montana Autobahn

[hooskins]

I am about to drive back down to Charlottesville right now on 29. I set the cruise to 10-11 over and state troopers don't give me crap.

[MTK]

All I know is it's up to the police to monitor and enforce traffic, not some tough guy who thinks he rules the road. In the end your passive aggressive behavior is no better than the all out road ragers and it only contributes to the problem. But hey have fun playing traffic cop.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

All I know is it's up to the police to monitor and enforce traffic, not some tough guy who thinks he rules the road. In the end your passive aggressive behavior is no better than the all out road ragers and it only contributes to the problem. But hey have fun playing traffic cop.

No it doesn't. It slows people down. And that's safer every day of the week.

The less the speed differential between cars on the road, the safer the road. Someone said it earlier, an elderly dude going 45 when everyone else is going 65 is just as dangerous as someone going 85 when everyone else is going 65.

The speed differential is what limits reaction times. Eliminate that differential and you have a safer road.

Come on, argue the logic. You're all tied up in the fact that I'm a combative jerk. Cool your heads and debate. Explain to me how I'm wrong? GMScud said this point could be argued the other way, well I still haven't heard anyone argue it.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

No it doesn't. It slows people down. And that's safer every day of the week.

The less the speed differential between cars on the road, the safer the road. Someone said it earlier, an elderly dude going 45 when everyone else is going 65 is just as dangerous as someone going 85 when everyone else is going 65.

The speed differential is what limits reaction times. Eliminate that differential and you have a safer road.

Come on, argue the logic. You're all tied up in the fact that I'm a combative jerk. Cool your heads and debate. Explain to me how I'm wrong? GMScud said this point could be argued the other way, well I still haven't heard anyone argue it.

The simple logic is you're NOT A COP dude. It's not your job to monitor and enforce traffic flow.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

The simple logic is you're NOT A COP dude. It's not your job to monitor and enforce traffic flow.

Why is that relevant? If you can break the law by going 95, why can't I break the law by blocking the left lane?

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

No it doesn't. It slows people down. And that's safer every day of the week.

The less the speed differential between cars on the road, the safer the road. Someone said it earlier, an elderly dude going 45 when everyone else is going 65 is just as dangerous as someone going 85 when everyone else is going 65.

The speed differential is what limits reaction times. Eliminate that differential and you have a safer road.

Come on, argue the logic. You're all tied up in the fact that I'm a combative jerk. Cool your heads and debate. Explain to me how I'm wrong? GMScud said this point could be argued the other way, well I still haven't heard anyone argue it.

That's interesting coming from you in this topic haha

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

No it doesn't. It slows people down. And that's safer every day of the week.

The less the speed differential between cars on the road, the safer the road. Someone said it earlier, an elderly dude going 45 when everyone else is going 65 is just as dangerous as someone going 85 when everyone else is going 65.

The speed differential is what limits reaction times. Eliminate that differential and you have a safer road.

Come on, argue the logic. You're all tied up in the fact that I'm a combative jerk. Cool your heads and debate. Explain to me how I'm wrong? GMScud said this point could be argued the other way, well I still haven't heard anyone argue it.

Ok. I'll take a stab at it.

First off, let me say that I don't really condone going 95mph. I'll go 85 in a 75 all day if conditions permit (very light traffic, no adverse weather, etc).

But if someone is in the fast lane going 95 in straight line, I think they are less of a danger to cause an accident than someone raging at 75mph.

A couple of things about that last sentence: 1) Someone going 95 is always going to be at risk of causing a wreck, I just contend it's LESS of a risk than a road rager going 20mph slower. 2) My definition of road rage involves things like aggressively weaving through slower traffic without signaling. Also tailgating, flashing your lights, and showing emotion at people who's driving you don't approve of (middle fingers, etc).

If someone is that overly aggressive, weaving through lanes, and so focused on other drivers rather than operating their own vehicle safely, I think they are WAY more likely to cause a wreck than someone focused on the road, going 20mph faster in a straight line. It seems like common sense to me really. You mention speed differential affecting reaction times. I don't disagree with that, but the I'd say the road rage behavior I discussed above would have a pretty adverse affect on reaction times as well.

Again, I don't approve of either behavior.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Originally Posted by GMScud

Ok. I'll take a stab at it.

First off, let me say that I don't really condone going 95mph. I'll go 85 in a 75 all day if conditions permit (very light traffic, no adverse weather, etc).

But if someone is in the fast lane going 95 in straight line, I think they are less of a danger to cause an accident than someone raging at 75mph.

A couple of things about that last sentence: 1) Someone going 95 is always going to be at risk of causing a wreck, I just contend it's LESS of a risk than a road rager going 20mph slower. 2) My definition of road rage involves things like aggressively weaving through slower traffic without signaling. Also tailgating, flashing your lights, and showing emotion at people who's driving you don't approve of (middle fingers, etc).

If someone is that overly aggressive, weaving through lanes, and so focused on other drivers rather than operating their own vehicle safely, I think they are WAY more likely to cause a wreck than someone focused on the road, going 20mph faster in a straight line. It seems like common sense to me really. You mention speed differential affecting reaction times. I don't disagree with that, but the I'd say the road rage behavior I discussed above would have a pretty adverse affect on reaction times as well.

Again, I don't approve of either behavior.

This pretty much sums up what pisses me off. Overly aggressive assholes. Now, maybe the reason I get pissed at the people going 95 is because typically THEY are the aggressive drivers. I've never had someone fly up on me going 90-100 and stay off my bumper. I would think that fast drivers are 99 out of 100 times are typically aggressive assholes too.

So rare to find a fast, yet courteous driver.

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

This pretty much sums up what pisses me off. Overly aggressive assholes. Now, maybe the reason I get pissed at the people going 95 is because typically THEY are the aggressive drivers. I've never had someone fly up on me going 90-100 and stay off my bumper. I would think that fast drivers are 99 out of 100 times are typically aggressive assholes too.

So rare to find a fast, yet courteous driver.

What's up? I am a fast, yet curteous driver...nice to meet you...sort of.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by GMScud

Ok. I'll take a stab at it.

First off, let me say that I don't really condone going 95mph. I'll go 85 in a 75 all day if conditions permit (very light traffic, no adverse weather, etc).

But if someone is in the fast lane going 95 in straight line, I think they are less of a danger to cause an accident than someone raging at 75mph.

A couple of things about that last sentence: 1) Someone going 95 is always going to be at risk of causing a wreck, I just contend it's LESS of a risk than a road rager going 20mph slower. 2) My definition of road rage involves things like aggressively weaving through slower traffic without signaling. Also tailgating, flashing your lights, and showing emotion at people who's driving you don't approve of (middle fingers, etc).

If someone is that overly aggressive, weaving through lanes, and so focused on other drivers rather than operating their own vehicle safely, I think they are WAY more likely to cause a wreck than someone focused on the road, going 20mph faster in a straight line. It seems like common sense to me really. You mention speed differential affecting reaction times. I don't disagree with that, but the I'd say the road rage behavior I discussed above would have a pretty adverse affect on reaction times as well.

Again, I don't approve of either behavior.

OK, well if that's what you're thinking by road rage, then yeah I'm with you. That's way more dangerous than 95 at a straight line. But it's rare when I've seen someone go to such great lengths to get around a blockade, most people aren't that nuts.

In the rare instances when I've seen someone driving that crazy, I just get as far away as possible because it's flat out dangerous and stupid. I do call the cops on 'em when possible, but steering clear is the name of the game. Do you see guys do this much? That seems like a pretty fantasized example of road rage, and in my experience isn't prevalent.

And as TMC said, the choice isn't really 95 and a straight line vs 75 and road rage. Usually the offender is a tailgater to boot. I'd rather him tailgate me at 75 than weave through traffic somewhere ahead of me.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

OK, well if that's what you're thinking by road rage, then yeah I'm with you. That's way more dangerous than 95 at a straight line. But it's rare when I've seen someone go to such great lengths to get around a blockade, most people aren't that nuts.

In the rare instances when I've seen someone driving that crazy, I just get as far away as possible because it's flat out dangerous and stupid. I do call the cops on 'em when possible, but steering clear is the name of the game. Do you see guys do this much? That seems like a pretty fantasized example of road rage, and in my experience isn't prevalent.

And as TMC said, the choice isn't really 95 and a straight line vs 75 and road rage. Usually the offender is a tailgater to boot. I'd rather him tailgate me at 75 than weave through traffic somewhere ahead of me.

Then I guess the gist of the whole debate is the definition of road rage. I've seen drivers act the way I've described plenty of times. In fact, it's rare that I've been on a long road trip and not seen an A-hole of this caliber at some point on the way.

If the debate is simply would you rather someone go 95 in a straight line or tailgate the guy going 75 in the left lane, then obviously the argument goes your way. IMO the act of tailgating is stupid, but in and of itself it doesn't necessarily amount to road rage. Combined with other stuff I'd say it's part of road rage, but not alone though.