| Posted By |
Message |
| Pages: 1 2 [3] |
1stimemom
Love my boys
Member since 2/08 8766 total posts
Name:
Mrs Dee
|
Re: Would either of these scenarios bother or aggravate you?
Yes!
|
Posted 1/29/10 6:07 PM  |
| |
|
Long Island Weddings
Long Island's Largest Bridal Resource |
LightUpOurLife
Totally in love
Member since 8/06 12785 total posts
Name:
Bonnie-Jean
|
Re: Would either of these scenarios bother or aggravate you?
Posted by MrsProfessor
And I don't really see how a slower driver in the slow lane has the same potential to cause an accident as someone doing 85 in the left.  Unless, of course, someone slams into them, so would it be their fault for going too slow? 
When the 'flow' of traffic is greater than 50, you don't see a potential problem with this? On a two lane highway?
FTR, I never go above 70 unless all other traffic is flying by me.
|
| Posted 1/29/10 6:10 PM |
| |
|
klingklang77
kraftwerk!
Member since 7/06 11487 total posts
Name:
Völlig losgelöst
|
Re: Would either of these scenarios bother or aggravate you?
Posted by headoverheels
Posted by klingklang77
What part of the NSP is it? The part with three lanes or two?
Two
Yes, it would annoy me. Not b/c of the people going the speeds, but b/c of the engineering of it. In a perfect world you would have three lanes. If one were going 60 and the other were going 50 then if there were a third lane I could easily pass at 55. 
|
| Posted 1/29/10 6:41 PM |
| |
|
|
|
Re: Would either of these scenarios bother or aggravate you?
Posted by BJandDan
Posted by MrsProfessor
And I don't really see how a slower driver in the slow lane has the same potential to cause an accident as someone doing 85 in the left. Unless, of course, someone slams into them, so would it be their fault for going too slow?
When the 'flow' of traffic is greater than 50, you don't see a potential problem with this? On a two lane highway?
FTR, I never go above 70 unless all other traffic is flying by me.
A potential problem, yes, but you'll never convince me that it would be the fault of the slower driver (slower by 5 miles below the limit in most places, BTW) in the lane that is meant for slower drivers.
I've read many articles about accidents that say "excessive speed was a factor" but I've never seen anything along the lines of "slower driving was a factor."
People should drive the speed that they are comfortable with (as long as it's not 30 on the highway), they should not have to drive fast to accomodate others.
Message edited 1/29/2010 6:46:42 PM.
|
| Posted 1/29/10 6:45 PM |
| |
|
drpepper318
MIR MIR MIR!
Member since 6/07 8274 total posts
Name:
me
|
Re: Would either of these scenarios bother or aggravate you?
No it wouldn't bother me at all!!!! It would be nice to see people driving within the legal limit for a change, rather than seeing everyone speeding dangerously.
|
| Posted 1/29/10 7:17 PM |
| |
|
mikeandjess
LIF Adult
Member since 10/07 2278 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Would either of these scenarios bother or aggravate you?
Neither scenario bothers me. 55 is the speed limit. Just because a lot of people think it is the norm to go 75 in the left lane doesn't make it legal.
|
| Posted 1/29/10 7:56 PM |
| |
|
Kara
Now Zagat Rated!
Member since 3/07 13217 total posts
Name:
They call me "Tater Salad"
|
Re: Would either of these scenarios bother or aggravate you?
Posted by BJandDan
Posted by MrsProfessor
And I don't really see how a slower driver in the slow lane has the same potential to cause an accident as someone doing 85 in the left. Unless, of course, someone slams into them, so would it be their fault for going too slow?
When the 'flow' of traffic is greater than 50, you don't see a potential problem with this? On a two lane highway?
FTR, I never go above 70 unless all other traffic is flying by me.
I don't see a problem with it. The problem is with the people going too fast to stop and not keeping safe distance. There's no reason why someone going 5mph below the posted speed limit in the right lane should cause an accident, UNLESS the person who hit them was going too fast to stop and didn't slow down in time to keep a safe distance (in which case it's the speeder's fault, not the slower driver's fault).
Message edited 1/29/2010 8:21:02 PM.
|
| Posted 1/29/10 8:20 PM |
| |
|
Candy Girl
Candy girl- you are so sweet!
Member since 11/07 6349 total posts
Name:
erin
|
Re: Would either of these scenarios bother or aggravate you?
I'm one of those people that always get "passed" on the highways. I drive at the speed limit--maybe 5 miles over if that much. I only use the Belt Parkway/Gowanus/BQE combo though, so I'm grateful if I can cruise at 35 most days. I would never dare go over the limit on the stretch if the belt from the Gowanus to the Verrazano Bridge--it's prime pull over territory.
I used to drive way too fast. I made it a New year's resolution one year to chill out and just drive at the speed limit and chill out--no hurries or rushing.
|
| Posted 1/29/10 9:41 PM |
| |
|
LightUpOurLife
Totally in love
Member since 8/06 12785 total posts
Name:
Bonnie-Jean
|
Re: Would either of these scenarios bother or aggravate you?
Posted by MrsProfessor
Posted by BJandDan
Posted by MrsProfessor
And I don't really see how a slower driver in the slow lane has the same potential to cause an accident as someone doing 85 in the left. Unless, of course, someone slams into them, so would it be their fault for going too slow?
When the 'flow' of traffic is greater than 50, you don't see a potential problem with this? On a two lane highway?
FTR, I never go above 70 unless all other traffic is flying by me.
A potential problem, yes, but you'll never convince me that it would be the fault of the slower driver (slower by 5 miles below the limit in most places, BTW) in the lane that is meant for slower drivers.
I've read many articles about accidents that say "excessive speed was a factor" but I've never seen anything along the lines of "slower driving was a factor."
People should drive the speed that they are comfortable with (as long as it's not 30 on the highway), they should not have to drive fast to accomodate others.
You certainly like that eyeroll.
Like I said earlier, if the FLOW of TRAFFIC is GREATER than FIFTY, it is a DANGER to others. Nobody needs to accomodate anyone. Nor did I ask that.
|
| Posted 1/30/10 12:31 AM |
| |
|
Kara
Now Zagat Rated!
Member since 3/07 13217 total posts
Name:
They call me "Tater Salad"
|
Re: Would either of these scenarios bother or aggravate you?
Posted by BJandDan
Posted by MrsProfessor
Posted by BJandDan
Posted by MrsProfessor
And I don't really see how a slower driver in the slow lane has the same potential to cause an accident as someone doing 85 in the left. Unless, of course, someone slams into them, so would it be their fault for going too slow?
When the 'flow' of traffic is greater than 50, you don't see a potential problem with this? On a two lane highway?
FTR, I never go above 70 unless all other traffic is flying by me.
A potential problem, yes, but you'll never convince me that it would be the fault of the slower driver (slower by 5 miles below the limit in most places, BTW) in the lane that is meant for slower drivers.
I've read many articles about accidents that say "excessive speed was a factor" but I've never seen anything along the lines of "slower driving was a factor."
People should drive the speed that they are comfortable with (as long as it's not 30 on the highway), they should not have to drive fast to accomodate others.
You certainly like that eyeroll.
Like I said earlier, if the FLOW of TRAFFIC is GREATER than FIFTY, it is a DANGER to others. Nobody needs to accomodate anyone. Nor did I ask that.
I disagree. The danger is in the people who aren't keeping a safe distance. I don't care how fast you are going, if you see you are getting too close to the car in front of you, you slow down well before you are creeping up their bumper. This seems to be a lost art around here -- People drive so fast and never seem to think twice about riding up someone's bumper. Of course you can't stop in time. I don't care what the flow of traffic is. If you are paying attention and keeping a safe distance, a car going 50 mph in the right hand lane is not a hazard.
ETA -- "You" is a general "you" not anyone here in particular!
Also ETA a slightly unrelated (but still sort of on point) PSA for when you see people hauling trailers, especially horse and livestock trailers -- When I haul my horses on the LIE (or any highway), I stay in the right lane and do 55-60 max. Stopping a trailer carrying 2-3 horses (or even 1) takes a lot of time. You cannot safely slam on the brakes when hauling live cargo. The trailer weighs too much to stop quickly and the animals inside can also be injured. I learned from trailering to always be mindful and keep a safe distance. Still, I cannot tell you how many idiots tailgate my trailer, cut me off and then slam on the brakes, not realizing how dangerous it is for them, me, my animals, and everyone else on the road. The reason you don't go really fast when hauling a trailer (especially in traffic) is because it already takes so much longer to stop -- if you add more speed, you making stopping that much harder and more dangerous. (Excessive speeds can also cause trailer sway, which is even worse.) In this scenario -- which I completely understand is very different from the OP's scenario -- I am hardly the one causing a hazard by driving more slowly than the flow of traffic. Everyone else driving like morons are the ones causing the hazard. I'm not going to risk my life and others' lives just to keep up with the flow of traffic. PLEASE never, ever, ever tailgate a trailer or cut one off. (The reason you don't tailgate is because if you are that close to my trailer, I can't see you!)
Message edited 1/30/2010 5:00:18 PM.
|
| Posted 1/30/10 4:49 PM |
| |
|
headoverheels
s'il vous plaît
Member since 6/07 42079 total posts
Name:
LB
|
Re: Would either of these scenarios bother or aggravate you?
Posted by MrsProfessor
I've read many articles about accidents that say "excessive speed was a factor" but I've never seen anything along the lines of "slower driving was a factor."
Actually, this WAS the cause of a recent fatal accident on the Northern State. Not 50PMH, but below the minimum speed limit. I understand there is a difference but I just wanted to point that out.
|
| Posted 1/30/10 8:54 PM |
| |
|
eddiesmommy
best buds!
Member since 5/09 11524 total posts
Name:
Melissa
|
Re: Would either of these scenarios bother or aggravate you?
Posted by headoverheels
1. Car in the right lane of the Northern State is going 50MPH.
2. Car in the left lane of the Northern State is going 60MPH.
Not during rush hour, and there is no traffic.
BE HONEST please. 
ETA: To clarify, I meant the portion of the NSP after the Wantagh Parkway where there are only two lanes. Sorry for any confusion!
#2, people in the left lane being pokey annoy the crap out of me.
|
| Posted 1/30/10 9:10 PM |
| |
|
Kara
Now Zagat Rated!
Member since 3/07 13217 total posts
Name:
They call me "Tater Salad"
|
Re: Would either of these scenarios bother or aggravate you?
Posted by headoverheels
Posted by MrsProfessor
I've read many articles about accidents that say "excessive speed was a factor" but I've never seen anything along the lines of "slower driving was a factor."
Actually, this WAS the cause of a recent fatal accident on the Northern State. Not 50PMH, but below the minimum speed limit. I understand there is a difference but I just wanted to point that out.
Can you explain how that happened and how it wasn't the fault of the driver BEHIND the slower driver who failed to slow down / stop in time (assuming it was a rear-end collision)? Unless you're cut off by the slower driver, you should slow down when you see the distance between you and the car in front of you is getting too small.
Unless the driver is going to slow while merging or cuts someone off, I can't se how a slower driver can be the fault. If you keep a safe distance - and slow down BEFORE you're up someone's bumper, there souldn't be a problem.
|
| Posted 1/30/10 9:23 PM |
| |
|
headoverheels
s'il vous plaît
Member since 6/07 42079 total posts
Name:
LB
|
Re: Would either of these scenarios bother or aggravate you?
Posted by Kara
Posted by headoverheels
Posted by MrsProfessor
I've read many articles about accidents that say "excessive speed was a factor" but I've never seen anything along the lines of "slower driving was a factor."
Actually, this WAS the cause of a recent fatal accident on the Northern State. Not 50PMH, but below the minimum speed limit. I understand there is a difference but I just wanted to point that out.
Can you explain how that happened and how it wasn't the fault of the driver BEHIND the slower driver who failed to slow down / stop in time (assuming it was a rear-end collision)? Unless you're cut off by the slower driver, you should slow down when you see the distance between you and the car in front of you is getting too small.
Unless the driver is going to slow while merging or cuts someone off, I can't se how a slower driver can be the fault. If you keep a safe distance - and slow down BEFORE you're up someone's bumper, there souldn't be a problem.
I can't recall the details but I will try and find the story. I think the person was going between 35 and 40 MPH and as we all know, 40MPH is the minimum. I could be wrong - but I do recall that the story itself quoted an authority as saying slow speed was the cause, I didn't make that statement myself.
I don't know if anyone else remembers... it was right by the exit for the SM Parkway/entrance to Commack Road.
|
| Posted 1/30/10 9:48 PM |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] |
