If Only Clover Would Move Over

Print Friendly

Moving over to allow faster-moving traffic to get by is a wonderful concept. But I’d take it a step farther: If you’re not passing, you should not be in the left lane at all.Left lane hog lead

That, at any rate, is the way it’s done in Germany. There is a reason why. It is called closing speed. If a Porsche turbo doing 140 is bearing down on a Fiat 500 doing 70, the Fiat driver had better notice the headlights getting much larger, much faster in his rearview – and get the hell out of the way in time.

Which he usually does. Which is why the German Autobahn is a safer place – without speed limits – than U.S. highways are with speed limits.

German drivers are taught to use the passing lane only to pass. They don’t set the cruise control and zone out or gabble on their cell phones like so many American drivers unfortunately do. Instead, they use scan their rearview and side mirrors so that they are always aware of the ebb and flow of traffic around them. They anticipate the need to yield to a faster-moving vehicle such that the faster moving vehicle’s driver does not have to abruptly slow then maneuver to get around a dawdler. Traffic thus flows.  And, high-speed traffic can mingle with lower-speed traffic safely.slower traffic keep right

U.S. highways (most of them) could also safely support much higher speeds than are currently permitted. Even the national high of 80 MPH in a few rural areas of Texas is absurd when put into context. That context being, the designed-for speeds of the U.S. Interstate Highway System – updated to reflect the advances in vehicle design over the past 60 years.

The starting point is 70-75 MPH. That is the average, routine speed of traffic envisioned by the Interstate system’ designers … back in the late 1950s. Curves, lines-of-sight, merge areas and so on were laid out on that assumption. Implicit in this is that maximum safe speeds were considerably higher. Pre-PC, a “speed limit” was precisely that: The maximum safe speed for the typical driver in the typical car on a given stretch of road. If 70 is just cruising along, then 90 is no big deal – assuming drivers practice lane discipline, use their mirrors – and yield to faster moving traffic before faster moving traffic enters their airspace.

A speed limit should not be synonymous with average, cruising along speeds – as they are today.move it, sister

At any rate, the point is that 60 years ago – when the typical car rode on balloon-sidewalled, bias-ply whitewalls, had drum brakes at all four corners, a farm tractor-esque leaf spring suspension  and nothing in the way of electronic safety systems – the engineers who laid out the Interstate system deemed 70-75 MPH average speeds well within the design parameters of the road, of the cars of the era – and the average driver of the era.

The Interstate System’s designers were not speed freaks or maniacs. They were crew-cut ’50s men – responsible men, who came to their decisions and recommendations only after excruciating (and math-based) careful analysis of all the factors. And they considered 70-75 to be a reasonable, safe speed.

We’ve only recently seen speed limits go back up to about what they recommended – and posted – 60 years ago.traffic pciture

If you were to factor in the galloping technical advances in everything from tire design to high-capacity four-wheel-disc brakes with ABS and passenger cabins built to withstand impacts better than the race cars of the not-to-distant past 70-75 seems awfully slow.

If a 1958 Chrysler was deemed capable of safe operation at 70 then surely a 2014 Chrysler can handle 80 or 90 just as safely. Probably, in fact the 2014 Chrysler is safer at 80 or 90 than the 1960 Chrysler was at 70.

It’s modern drivers (Clovers) that can’t handle 80 or 90.

Clovers who don’t move over. Who squat in the left lane with the cruise control on. Who either don’t use their mirrors – or don’t care about overtaking traffic. Who consider it their American Idol watching, Football-worshipping, god-given right to park their car in the left lane, set the cruise control and ignore whatever’s going behind them.clover king

And so, we have the problem of speed variance – and more dangerous highways than the German Autobahn.

Cars are traveling at higher rates of speed than others isn’t a problem if slower cars defer to faster moving ones and do so pre-emptively, so that flow is maintained (and so that sudden panic braking is rarely necessary).

But when the drivers of slower-moving cars refuse to yield, they force faster-moving traffic to decelerate rapidly or take evasive action to get around them. This interrupts the flow of traffic. Cars slowing and then speeding up, jockeying for position, is what creates the safety hazard – not some cars moving at a higher rate of speed than others.fast lane moron picture

If the left lane was understood to be for passing only . .. if American drivers could be disabused of their Cloveritic ways and taught to reflexively defer to overtaking traffic in an anticipatory fashion rather than viewing such as a threat to their personal space and doing all in their power to impede it … then U.S. highways could dispense with speed limits entirely and people could drive as fast as folks did back in 1960, except without having to worry about getting a ticket for “speeding.”

Throw it in the Woods?

PS:This site is almost entirely reader supported. No Google (They blacklisted us – so we dumped them. See here for the full story about that.)

So, we need your support to make a go of it and keep EPautos rolling. Please consider supporting this web site in whatever way you’re able. The link to our “donate” button is here.

Thanks in advance!

Share Button

  224 comments for “If Only Clover Would Move Over

  1. Eightsouthman
    September 26, 2013 at 8:53 am

    Bevin, there’s a scenario that plays out with a really nice ride I have never been able to understand. You have a really nice car, maybe with what is obviously a new, non-factory paint job, a one of a kind car since it was made in limited numbers anyway and no matter how far away you park it from every other car, you come out to find and old beater so close you can’t open the long door to get in. I got tired of this so I began to take my 3/4 T 4 WD Chevy I used for all that tough stuff to places like mini-malls with their exclusive stores and cars in the lot. I’d find a close spot and watch people pull up and start to take that spot beside me, then back out and park somewhere else. I often had one of two pit bulls with me so when someone parked right beside me they’d get out, turn around and be eye to eye with Ace and his blue eye. They’d be startled but Ace was chilly, just sit there and look. No so Roy. That was HIS pickup and he didn’t want anyone messing with it and parking beside it constituted the crime of being too close to which he could blast a blood curdling bark that would instantly have the highly coiffed crowd 20′ away, amazing themselves they could still run.

    • Me2
      September 26, 2013 at 11:29 am

      Eight,

      Yup. My Suburban always had at least one empty adjacent spot on all sides even if the parking lot was otherwise filled. It was like people thought the body cancer was contagious. Or they thought that it might spontaneously explode, I don’t know.

      I had nice cars (before Suburban) but got tired of being maddened when I discovered some idiot had dinged the door or scrapped a shopping cart along a fender. Ugly vehicles are quite liberating.

      While I do respect other peoples vehicles, sometimes it cannot be extended to the owners. You know, the guy who parks across two or more stalls “because it’s a nice car”? I have no problem with this if it is in an empty section of the lot but when it is close to the building entrance in a crowded lot, I get a bit irritated. So, I park my bike in the half spot on the drivers side, about 12″ from the drivers door. Then I sit down on the curb and read a book until the owner returns. Always fun. So far about 90% glare, then crawl in through the passengers side. A few have asked me to move my bike, to which I reply, “I’m parked properly, your problem”. Only one has ever grasped that parking like that is a dick-headed thing to do and I got up and moved my bike for him.

      Yup, I can be an asshole. But not without motivation.

  2. Me2
    September 25, 2013 at 7:52 pm

    After reading through all of this, I thought a re-post might be in order. Buy a beater and be happy!

    April 24, 2013 at 10:22 pm

    I have had about 20 vehicles in my driving years and I have found that some vehicles are damned near clover-proof.

    The one that made it seem like I owned the road was the 1980 1-ton 4×4 Suburban. I bought it from a guy in the middle of a field where I suspect it had resided for at least several years. Primer grey, rusty, dented and about the ugliest thing I have ever seen but mechanically probably the best vehicle I have ever owned.

    Anyway, people could not get out of it’s way fast enough. At 4-way stops, nobody would move until I had. The idiots who race to the end of the merge lane never dared to cut in front of me. On the highway, the left lane cleared like magic.

    There is something to be said about driving a vehicle that just screams “GET THE FUCK OUT OF THE WAY, YOUR VEHICLE IS SHINY, MINE WEIGHS SEVERAL TONS AND I DON’T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT MY SHEET METAL”.

    :)

    (Eric: sorry if re-posting is a no-no)

    • dom
      September 25, 2013 at 8:09 pm

      That is an awesome post! Had me at “I bought it from a guy in the middle of a field.”

      • DownshiftFast5to1
        September 25, 2013 at 8:49 pm

        Yes, that was a good post.

        […I wonder how that one guy is coming along with putting an Izzu four banger in a Suburban? Probably done by now and doing road tests.]

    • September 25, 2013 at 8:44 pm

      Dear Me2,

      Proof positive that “Quantity has a quality all its own.”

    • Ed
      September 25, 2013 at 11:07 pm

      Goddamn, I actually REMEMBER that post. Glad to see it again, no-no or not ;-)

    • Garysco
      September 26, 2013 at 5:54 am

      A nice rusty bucket like that screams “I don’t care or have insurance” I had a rusted out 54 Ford 1/2 people on the LA freeway system (usually tailgaters to the max) treated like it contained anthrax.

    • September 26, 2013 at 6:13 am

      Dear Me2,

      Also, I seem to recall a humorous “law” about that.

      Something about how the rattiest car on the road always has the right of way?

      Especially as it veers dangerously close to a just detailed exoticar.

  3. Lomar
    September 24, 2013 at 7:47 pm

    Passing on the right is the best part of driving on US highways. Especially passing on the far right lane and swinging back to the left.

  4. percival
    September 24, 2013 at 12:27 pm

    >>It is the state. It is the control freak mentality of the state that causes much of the problems. Hans Monderman proved it.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Monderman

    All signs, signals, and other traffic control devices removed and traffic improved, safety went up.

    His approach obviously had to do with flexibility and nuance. Nowhere does it say that traffic control devices were summarily removed from Holland. Clearly, there is precision and context involved.

    • BrentP
      September 24, 2013 at 12:51 pm

      are you trying to be annoying?
      Removed from the problem area, the place where people are fighting against one another, of course, from the context of what I was replying to and what I cited, that should be obvious to anyone.

      • percival
        September 24, 2013 at 8:16 pm

        Kind of.

        • Ed
          September 24, 2013 at 9:45 pm

          So, you’re a troll.

          • percival
            September 25, 2013 at 7:45 am

            Does it have to be so black-and-white?

            • September 25, 2013 at 8:08 am

              When it comes to abuse, yes.

              You’re either in favor of it or you’re not.

              I’m not.

          • Ed
            September 25, 2013 at 7:49 am

            Sure. Why not?

          • Jean
            September 25, 2013 at 11:34 am

            re: Percival, Dumbest knight of the Round table:
            “No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise.”
            ― Alan Moore, Watchmen

            IT IS black and white. (Almost typed shite – interesting malapropism with meanings, but true as well.)
            It is RIGHT – or WRONG.
            SACRED – or PROFANE. And if re-categorized, it can NEVER go back.

            We LIVE in the “World of Darkness.”
            And all of us who tried so very hard to make things work, when we did right? And we got SCREWED, for as long as 30 years?

            We. ARE. ANGRY!

            Deservedly so: We were told, do these things; act this way; others will treat you with respect, and you will move ahead, and be successful.

            Have you seen what’s in office? What passes for lawyers? what passes for LAW?
            WE. CANNOT. CONTINUE.

            It takes intense effort to keep one’s self deluded. Once you see the world as it is? You’re done, you can’t go back. There is no “blue pill” after you take the red, it’s a lifelong commitment.

            Stepping on cockroaches like you, that’s just… Gravy. :-D

  5. wootendw
    September 24, 2013 at 12:06 pm

    “If you’re not passing, you should not be in the left lane at all.”

    Let’s just remember that this rule only applies to limited access highways such as those that are part of the IHS. It does NOT apply to suburban or urban roads where drivers frequently have to make left turns. I am saying this because there are, apparently, a lot of drivers who expect me to move right when I have a left turn coming up and I am quite tired of seeing idiots so close behind me that I cannot see the bumpers of their cars over my trunk. And there are still a few places on the IHS where exits are on the left.

  6. charlie
    September 24, 2013 at 12:01 pm

    I really hate the statement “there ought to be a law,” but this is one case where there ought to be a law. There should be a national law that states that you HAVE to be passing when driving in the left hand lane.

    • DownshiftFast5to1
      September 24, 2013 at 12:55 pm

      “The specifics of our “low-grade, feel-good tyranny” consistently horrify.
      Shortly after the namby-pamby phrase “something needs to be
      done” …[or there ought to be a law]… is publicly uttered, all manner of faux sensitive acts of negligence and oppression are then committed.”…

      http://www.lewrockwell.com/2007/12/bernard-chapin/save-the-world-mindyourownbusiness/

      • Garysco
        September 24, 2013 at 1:57 pm

        @Downshift – Ha ha. Literally the number cannot be determined. This, from The Wall Street Journal in July of 2011:

        In 1998, the American Bar Association performed a computer search of the federal codes looking for the words “fine” and “imprison,” as well as variations. The ABA study concluded the number of crimes was by then likely much higher than 3,000, but didn’t give a specific estimate.

        “We concluded that the hunt to say, ‘Here is an exact number of federal crimes,’ is likely to prove futile and inaccurate,” says James Strazzella, who drafted the ABA report. The ABA felt “it was enough to picture the vast increase in federal crimes and identify certain important areas of overlap with state crimes,” he said.

        None of these studies broached the separate—and equally complex—question of crimes that stem from federal regulations, such as, for example, the rules written by a federal agency to enforce a given act of Congress. These rules can carry the force of federal criminal law. Estimates of the number of regulations range from 10,000 to 300,000. None of the legal groups who have studied the code have a firm number.

        “There is no one in the United States over the age of 18 who cannot be indicted for some federal crime,” said John Baker, a retired Louisiana State University law professor who has also tried counting the number of new federal crimes created in recent years. “That is not an exaggeration.”

        • michael.white
          September 24, 2013 at 3:16 pm

          I’m not a rabid Ayn Rand follower, but I’ve read and enjoyed a lot of her works. Here’s one of my favorite passages from Atlas Shrugged:

          “There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kinds of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of lawbreakers – and then you cash in on guilt.”

          • Garysco
            September 24, 2013 at 6:23 pm

            @michael.white – Yup. Rand and her theories can be called may things, but failing to think though her philosophy is not one. I have never found her detailed explanation of why Galt’s Gulch, but I can surmise it was the only way out she could think of.

          • ozymandias
            September 24, 2013 at 7:10 pm

            the only way out of prison, open air or otherwise, is out. all roads outa’ rome, lead outa’ rome. how much thinking does that take?

            here’s a randy i like:

            The symbol of all relationships among [rational] men, the moral symbol of respect for human beings, is the trader. We, who live by values, not by loot, are traders, both in matter and in spirit. A trader is a man who earns what he gets and does not give or take the undeserved. A trader does not ask to be paid for his failures, nor does he ask to be loved for his flaws. A trader does not squander his body as fodder or his soul as alms. Just as he does not give his work except in trade for material values, so he does not give the values of his spirit—his love, his friendship, his esteem—except in payment and in trade for human virtues, in payment for his own selfish pleasure, which he receives from men he can respect. The mystic parasites who have, throughout the ages, reviled the traders and held them in contempt, while honoring the beggars and the looters, have known the secret motive of their sneers: a trader is the entity they dread—a man of justice.

            and the flick to go with it, this context, is “trading places”

            clip includes virile knowmonia and taleb’s turkey problem…☻

          • Garysco
            September 24, 2013 at 7:34 pm

            @Ozymandais – Permit me to finish it:

            To those who wish to live and to recapture the honor their soul.

            Stop supporting your own destroyers through the sanction you give them. Do not try to live on your enemies’ terms or to win a game when they’re setting the rules. Do not help them fake reality.

            Do not contribute your achievements to them. When they force you, obey but do not volunteer anything. Do not help criminals pretend that they are your benefactors.

            In your own mind and life, practice the Morality of Life. You have no chance to win on the Morality of Death.

            When the looters’ state collapses, the producers will return, and those who wish to live by our code can rejoin us.

            Our political system will be based on the moral premise that no one may obtain values by physical force. Each must live by his own rational judgment.

            In that world you may live without fear, and live with people who are responsible and reliable. It will be a just world, where your virtues will be rewarded, and mutual respect among people is possible.

            Fight for this world, in the name of the best within you. You will win when you are ready to pronounce this oath: “I swear — by my life and my love of it — that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”

          • ozymandias
            September 24, 2013 at 8:07 pm

            yeah. great speech. points out the necessity of pickin’ & choosin’, tho. not swallerin’ whole & regurgitatin’, makin’ a jackson pollock outta’ yer life…that maybe some stranger, who will be wholly indifferent to your “contribution”, can profit by, after you’re dead…like this guy, maybe

            you’ve only the one (life). posterity? who cares? that “someday” is a variation on “its for the children”. and, like happiness, it isn’t pursued, or managed/engineered, directly. if that shining day comes at all (doubtful), it’ll be as a side effect (& not of martyrdom, either).

            even alissa zinovievna rosenbaum split russia (not to mention her old name)….

  7. josephdoaks
    September 24, 2013 at 11:16 am

    Yeah, greenville7, the correctly worded “KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT TO PASS” sign has disappeared, to be replaced with “SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT”. Probably due to some Federal Sign Nazi ruling.

    The problem seems to be, “SLOWER” than what? Slower than the posted speed limit? Oops, slower than the guy who just passed you on the right — so now get over? Nobody wants to admit to being “SLOWER”.

    • Eightsouthman
      September 24, 2013 at 2:00 pm

      joseph, I recall as far back as the 50’s signs in Tx. stating Slower Traffic Keep Right and we had no IHS and very few 4 lane roads. You mostly saw these before a passing lane on a hill. The sign is still in use. I always took it to mean if someone is coming up on you then you should make sure you’re not blocking their way. I think everybody else thinks it has to do with farm tractors or something by the way they drive.

      • Roland
        September 24, 2013 at 2:32 pm

        Eight, these extra lanes are common in my area and are problematic, many times because they are ridiculously short. I wouldn’t call them “passing lanes,” because when the state’s road-design parasites add a lane on a hill, they never do it on the left; it’s always on the right. What happens to those of us who simply want to mind our own business in the right lane and get where we’re going without being hassled by the government-costumed revenue collectors is that when the lane runs out, we are not able to move back to the normal driving lane because the mannerless clods who equate their insignificantly greater speed with superiority won’t let us back in. I ignore these lanes if there already is at least one empty passing lane to my left. Of course the existence of an easy pass-on-the-left choice does not keep pathetic tailgating amateurs from sitting two inches behind me and fuming.

  8. Rebecca Clark
    September 24, 2013 at 11:16 am

    The Mexicans have the best and cheapest solution to forcing people to slow down near schools and thru small towns. GIANT SPEED BUMPS. Hit a couple of those going even 30 mph and you’ll never again forget to slow down.

    • michael.white
      September 24, 2013 at 12:19 pm

      Those topes can be brutal, especially in small towns with little traffic. I’ve hit some of them at 10 MPH, causing me to stop and make sure my Jeep hadn’t been damaged. Much more effective than any sort of “law enforcement” I’ve seen.

      • percival
        September 24, 2013 at 8:14 pm

        It makes snow plowing a bitch.

    • DownshiftFast5to1
      September 24, 2013 at 12:31 pm

      Rebecca Clark, I read somewhere that speed bumps cause ambulances and firetrucks to slow down which results in unnecessary deaths and property damage caused by the delay.

      So maybe speed bumps aren’t the best solutions.
      Speed bumps don’t actually protect anybody.

      A wall between the street and the school, or whatever, seems like a better idea to me, you know, an actual preventative device.
      Or maybe, pedestrian over passes?

      • Eightsouthman
        September 24, 2013 at 1:46 pm

        Speed bumps don’t actually protect anybody.

        They protect the kids or any other pedestrian near them in Mexico. More like a speed bunker I’d say. You ease off in 1st gear, clutch it and let just one axle ease over and then do the same with the other. Lots of clutch and brake work at these things. After a few of them I just used the underdrive gear to crawl over them.

    • Eightsouthman
      September 24, 2013 at 12:51 pm

      It would be better if they didn’t have them in the middle of nowhere….or at least some houses or something were visible to indicate their presence except for a worn out sign opposite them “Bumpa”. No joke. The first time I saw some I had been doing between 90 and 100. I got down to about 70 in my one ton 4 WD diesel pickup…not sure I hit more than one since we were airborne. Whaaa? WTF was that? Next bunch, small sign, what does it say? Bumpa Gezus, screeeeechh

  9. percival
    September 24, 2013 at 10:18 am

    >>Think about it, Percival: Pretty much all deliberate criminal acts are “hit and run.” The criminals don’t stand there and wait to be caught. They do their thing – and split.

    The hit-and-run vehicle crashes involves what I talked about when it came to a range range of intent.

    The crash itself is rarely intentional, but fleeing is. And it’s likely extemely impulsive. In other words, they weren’t thinking “today is the day I’m going to rear-end someone and leave”. It’s damage control after the fact. The victim has a fighting chance of getting the registration.

  10. Roland
    September 24, 2013 at 10:03 am

    Eric, I’m a big fan, but I must say I’m disappointed with the level of this discussion; it is downright pedestrian. I have been hearing this boring crap from amateur drivers for 40 years. I started driving farm tractors at age 6, and I was driving tractor-trailers all over the country when most of the commenters probably were still wearing three-cornered pants. I’ve raced at Road America and Mid-Ohio. I used to love to drive but now I would rather go to the dentist than venture onto a public road. Yes, there are lots of clovers out there, but more prevalent, in my perception, are the mouth-breathing amateurs who fancy themselves racecar drivers. No matter how much you try to simply mind your own business and get where you’re going, they will not leave you alone. Some will slow down and sit on your rear bumper for 30 miles glaring at you when they could pass any time they felt like it. They are stupid and hateful and dangerous. They would not know the non-aggression principle if it jumped up and bit them in the ass.
    The state of driving in America is truly pathetic. Interstates are an endless parade of tailgating morons. On short trips it seems that I can best avoid them by staying in the right lane and driving at or slightly below the upper speed limit. But no matter what you do, you simply can’t drive with these dunces. It’s like being on a basketball team where I’m the only one who knows the rules. I inbound the ball to a teammate – and he tucks it under his arm and takes off running. Sheesh.
    Anyhow, forget all of that. The important question is what causes all of this conflict? Why do we not see silly squabbles like this on sidewalks or skating rinks? I think the problem is the state. The state makes all of these stinking rules and paints lines on the ground that we are supposed to obey like sheep being herded to a new pasture. Vee must haff order! And it was the state that invented the idiotic notion of “right of way,” which discourages cooperation and serves only to give drivers more reasons to become indignant.
    The solution, I think, is private ownership of roads. I don’t have any expectation that I will live to see it, but it is interesting to think about – way more interesting than this tired old bitching about left lane bandits.
    How would you run a road if you owned it and had to compete for customers? I would start by removing all regulatory signs and markings, including lane divisions, and keep only those that tell drivers where they are and how to get where they are going. Obviously, speed limits are stupid. On my road, I want drivers paying attention to what is going on around them, not scanning the landscape in search of a number to duplicate on their speedometers. The only stripes I would paint on the pavement would be to mark the edge of the road, and I would make sure those were bright and well-maintained. I would keep it smooth and well-drained and tell drivers, “Okay, you’re on your own. Be nice; it doesn’t cost anything.”
    Central planning doesn’t work any better for roads than it does for schools or the economy or anything else. Who knows what innovations entrepreneurs would come up with in pursuit of profit? What would you try?

    • percival
      September 24, 2013 at 10:32 am

      >>Who knows what innovations entrepreneurs would come up with in pursuit of profit?

      First things first. The road owners create a powerful lobby which enables them to shirk liability. :oD

      • Roland
        September 24, 2013 at 12:21 pm

        I am assuming a free market. In a free market, entrepreneurs wouldn’t waste their resources on lobbying because there would be nobody to lobby. The only way they would have to achieve success would be to serve consumers.

    • BrentP
      September 24, 2013 at 12:03 pm

      It is the state. It is the control freak mentality of the state that causes much of the problems. Hans Monderman proved it.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Monderman

      All signs, signals, and other traffic control devices removed and traffic improved, safety went up.

    • October 3, 2013 at 4:50 pm

      I agree with Roland about the amateurs. Yes, there are some here also.

      There was another thread here a while back that I commented on, where someone told me if I was behind another vehicle waiting for that vehicle to clear so I could pass, and if the commenter came up behind me, it was my obligation to move over for him immediately.

      Several other commenters agreed.

      It reflected some amount af arrogance and hubris. I expect libertarians to be better than that.

      I am normally one of the 5%ers — I normally drive faster than about 95% of interstate traffic. More than once I have passed someone on a clear stretch, then get stuck behind a left-lane bandit. Eventually one of the amateurs I just passed has caught up behind me as a result, and flashed me to move over.

      Sometimes, I do, because I assume such a person is a complete ass and it’s just better to let them go.

      But then after the logjam is clear I go back to my own speed — and I pass the amateur again.

      • Ed
        October 3, 2013 at 5:01 pm

        “It reflected some amount af arrogance and hubris. I expect libertarians to be better than that.”

        Yes, I agree, but not everyone who posts here is a libertarian. There are a few objectivists here, and Randian objectivists are (IMO) usually humorless, insufferably arrogant assholes. There are a few shills who post here and claim to be libertarians, but they’re making the claim in order to try to lend a false legitimacy to the statist ideals they like to express.

        i disagree with the ones who claimed that you were obliged to move over for them so that they would be the first in line behind the imbecile who was holding everyone up. If you’re in the left lane trying to pass, you have the right to be there, doing just that.

  11. percival
    September 24, 2013 at 9:44 am

    I forgot where I read this…but it was about the benefits of people driving manual transmissions.

    It renders texting and make-up application all but impossible and engages all the senses on a minute-to-minute basis.

  12. Dave P.
    September 24, 2013 at 9:42 am

    Best road trip I ever had was when I was able to crank it above the limit, set my Cruise, and be the one passing everyone while in the left lane without ever needing to slow down until I reached the next major city (3 hours away). At some points I was going for stretches of miles in the left lane as there were so many people in the right and I was overtaking them so quickly that it was smarter to stay in the left until they were all specks in my rear view mirror.

  13. percival
    September 24, 2013 at 9:40 am

    I was talking about hit-and-runs. A daily, predictable phenomenon occuring in Everytown USA on shared public ways.

    Registrations and DLs make life much easier on victims who would otherwise have essentially no chance of collecting from the at-fault party. That’s about as dry and factual as it gets.

    • September 24, 2013 at 9:45 am

      Well, sure.

      But what about hit and run theft?

      Same thing – in principle – isn’t it?

      • percival
        September 24, 2013 at 9:49 am

        I’m not being a wise-acre, but what is hit-and-run theft? I’m not picturing what you’re talking about.

        • September 24, 2013 at 9:54 am

          “I’m not being a wise-acre, but what is hit-and-run theft? I’m not picturing what you’re talking about.”

          I walk by your parked car. I see something I want. I smash the window and take it.

          I notice your garage door is open – and no one seems to be around. I stroll over, see you left the key in the ignition – and ride off on your $15,000 Harley.

          Think about it, Percival: Pretty much all deliberate criminal acts are “hit and run.” The criminals don’t stand there and wait to be caught. They do their thing – and split.

    • September 24, 2013 at 9:51 am

      PS: Despite mandatory driver’s licenses, mandatory insurance and all the rest, hit and run – and no real accountability – remains commonplace. People drive without DLs – and without insurance – notwithstanding “the law.”

      The fact remains that all these laws do is make life more expensive/difficult and full of hassles for the people who – as a rule – are not the problem.

      It is a Cloveritic assumption to believe you can eliminate irresponsible/criminal conduct by treating everyone as presumptively criminal.

      It is also wrong to do so.

      • percival
        September 24, 2013 at 10:11 am

        >>It is a Cloveritic assumption to believe you can eliminate irresponsible/criminal conduct by treating everyone as presumptively criminal.

        Not sure how something like vehicle registration treats someone like they are presumptively criminal. It can have just as much to do with vehicle recovery as it does offender identification; not to mention being a very popular topic of property disputes when relationships dissolve etc.

        Cars are ubiquitous. They are wrapped up in so much crap related to litigation and insurance issues, that one’s life would revolve around trips to civil court for things which, in some cases, a cop can just show up and handle.

        “That’s my car”
        “No, that’s my car.”
        Cop: “How about I run a title search and call it a day?”*

        Done.

        *On a state database

    • BrentP
      September 24, 2013 at 12:11 pm

      You write as if you’ve never experienced being hit by a dead beat or had to deal with an insurance company that simply refused to pay out. And that’s if the other party sticks around. If they run away normally nobody gets the plate number and there will be no investigation for anything short of a fatality or seriously injured child.

      Essentially the state’s control mechanisms don’t do anything for us. They are for the state’s benefit. Not ours.

      • BrentP
        September 24, 2013 at 12:13 pm

        Furthermore, what makes something easier often isn’t the right thing to do.

        Keeping us well caged, tracked, and numbered sure would make things easy. Is it right?

    • Lambskin
      September 24, 2013 at 1:37 pm

      I dunno. I myself was a “victim” of a hit and run as a teenager in SoCal. I rode my bike out into the street and got hit by a Hispanic male driving a pickup truck. My fault. He took off anyway, I imagine because he was one of those “undocumented” types. Broad daylight. Several witnesses. He never was caught to my knowledge.

      The registration/licensing scheme is to build a corral around we sheep so we can’t escape the shearing process, not to keep us safe from the wolves of society. Why would the government/cops want to get rid of all crime and criminals? They’d be putting themselves out of the job.

  14. percival
    September 24, 2013 at 9:28 am

    My tangents were about a big picture. Vehicle speed appropriateness doesn’t exist in a vaccuum. Driver, car maintenence, and legal administration surrounding it all contribute to the autobahn as we know it. It’s not a bunch of straight pavement with fast cars on it.

    You should hear the tangents I decided against bringing up! I’m trying to be good.

    • September 24, 2013 at 9:36 am

      True, but that doesn’t impugn or obviate the point made about common courtesy – yielding to faster-moving traffic, using one’s mirrors, etc.

      These are acts easily practiced by individuals, on the basis of their making sense – in the same way that most people understand that you don’t just stand (or dawdle) in the middle of a busy sidewalk and expect other people to accommodate you.

    • BrentP
      September 24, 2013 at 12:20 pm

      Except those are secondary challenges.
      The primary challenge is to change the mentality. Once that is done the rest falls into place.

      The american mentality is to dumb down driving and make crashes not hurt so much. All this does is create more problems and build better idiots. This mentality needs to be tossed aside. Get rid of the control freak mentality, of treating people like idiot children. Then we can actually have safer roads that work. From there people start to maintain their cars better, they demand better roads, and all the rest. It starts with the mentality.

  15. percival
    September 24, 2013 at 9:24 am

    Oh, I get it. No philosophical disagreement.

    One of the under-examined blurbs of thought I tend to see in the libertarian circles is their ideas of holding specific people accountable.

    The strawman which is continually glossed over is the libertarian idea of the “honest criminal”

    Real world example is hit-and-run crashes. The inherent problem is that the offender doesn’t want to get caught. Inherently. That’s what makes the offense exist.

    So how does one track down a hit-and-run driver other than registrations, driver’s licenses, and all the intrusive government affirmations of car and driver?

    Ah, but then the libertarian character of the fully committed offender. As if all of them are full-throttle assholes 100% of the time, and there’s no way to stop them, so don’t bother trying. The true hit-and-runner fully intended to do it, so he will have covered up his plates and fully tinted out his windows before he gets into a hit-and-run, therefore NONE of us should have to bother getting plates and DLs.

    Thing is, there IS nuance in human behavior. Human offenses run the gamut of evil predators and silly negligence. Lots of LEGITIMATE (and legal) crime occurs like improv. Intent may not have existed yesterday, but within a couple seconds it develops and is executed. Some of the annoying hoops all of us are expected to go through will help bring a legitimate a-hole to justice after he does in fact harm someone else and needs to be identified and located FIRST.

    • September 24, 2013 at 9:31 am

      C’mon Percival!

      That’s just too easy.

      How are murderers and thieves tracked down? They tend to flee the scene of their crimes and do their best to avoid being tracked down, too.

      Shall we – to use your implied solution – “register” everyone, fit them with some sort of trackable ID, in order to more readily apprehend murderers and thieves and so on?

      I believe most people are not sociopaths – or even assholes. I therefore oppose presuming everyone is one or the other and imposing prior restraint on them on that basis.

      Deal with individual wrongdoing individually.

      Yes, some will “get away with it.” They always will.

      And punishing/controlling/regulating everyone will never prevent that.

      But it will turn us all into inmates of a planetary prison.

      No thanks, mang.

      I’d rather accept the possibility of some idiot or criminal causing me harm than endure the certainty of being harmed by organized criminality… that is, by government.

      • Lambskin
        September 24, 2013 at 1:17 pm

        Not to take this argument off on yet another tangent, but what Eric just described is in no small part due to the American mentality moving away from the Christian mentality of “turn the other cheek” because evil-doers will be punished in the next life if not in this Earthly one.

        The American Clover is now a card carrying member of some vengeance obsessed collectivist mobocracy. Even a lot of the Christians I know fall prey to this mentality. I won’t be surprised when they advocate the death penalty for convicted speeders and drunk-drivers, because their behavior could have, just maybe might have, killed somebody.

        When will the blood lust of the Preventive Punishment Clover Crowd finally be slaked? When we have Minority Report style law enforcement? Public beheadings? Mass graves full of drunk-drivers and people who spanked their kids?

    • BrentP
      September 24, 2013 at 12:23 pm

      I was once intentionally run off the road by a driver of a black crown vic. Scraped the wall, sent the car spining across the interstate. I didn’t get his plate. Had more important things on my mind at the moment. He kept on going. cops did not give a damn.

      Please explain how your system helps me?

      • Lambskin
        September 24, 2013 at 1:27 pm

        True dat! Try following a car and see just how close you have to be to get a good read of a license plate. Beyond 2-3 car lengths and you need binoculars.

        But those fancy plate reading cameras seem to do okay when the cops want to pull you over because your registration/insurance lapsed yesterday.

    • October 3, 2013 at 2:26 pm

      Just about every one of the conflicts mentioned herein (how fast one may go, how slow, who keeps right, who keeps left) are conflicts only because government owns the roads. We are all forced to pay for them; and that being the case, we all have a *right* to have them regulated according to our wishes.

      *That* is the problem.

      Eliminate government as the monopoly provider of the means of transportation, and what replaces it?

      Contract.

      As in Free Enterprise.

      Entrepreneur A builds Road A, invites people to use it under his house rules. Provides access to property owners along route — for a price. Revenue goes towards maintenance & further roadbuilding.

      Entrepreneur B sees a need for a parallel road where drivers are allowed to roll faster. Builds Road B; charges a toll, users enjoy the fast travel and limited access. Revenue goes towards maintenance & further roadbuilding.

      Entrepreneur C sees a need to get electric cars rolling the highways, Builds Road C. Allows free access to electric cars; charges a modest toll of fossil-powered vehicles; limits speeds to Clover levels. Revenue goes towards maintenance & further roadbuilding. Also requires every driver to wear hippie beach clothing, smoke at least one doobie every 10 miles, and have a watermelon strapped to the roof.

      The nice thing about Free Enterprise is all of the above are perfectly fine in a free society. In each case, users can patronize whichever road provider most suits their needs. There’s no gunverment to force people to choose one style over another.

      • Roland
        October 3, 2013 at 2:51 pm

        Excellent post, Marc. It’s fun to think about what roads would look like if they had always been private (just as it’s fun to fantasize about free-market schools). I’ve always imagined that there would not be many of the parallel roads that you describe, but rather lots and lots of deals and leasing arrangements among road companies, similar to what we have seen in the telecommunications industry since it was partially deregulated. At any rate, as you say, there are “nice things” about free enterprise. Another one is that you can never predict what amazing innovations will come from entrepreneurs in pursuit of profit. Statists just don’t get this. Their first question is always, “So, smarty pants: what is YOUR plan?”

  16. September 24, 2013 at 9:16 am

    I own a car that is designed to go fast, handle , and be extremely safe.

    I own a 1993 Corvette. Even though it is 20 years old, it is especially safe. It was designed into it. From the suspension, to better brakes, to the tire size, etc. If I get into any sort of “incident” , a deer jumping in front of me, a tree falling on me, or someone hits me and causes me to rollover, it has a built in rollbar that is designed to keep the occupant /s safe.

    One thing that needs to be done, is to improve the quality of the roads themselves. Some are in horrible shape. Where it is unsafe to travel at any speed.

    In my 42 some years of driving, one of the things that causes a lot of wrecks is the slower drivers. They may never get into one, but they can cause them.
    They will pull out in front of you, often without signalling and you have to hit the brakes , fast and hard to avoid a collision.

    The solution, better roads and better drivers. Not more regulations.

  17. percival
    September 24, 2013 at 9:03 am

    In other words, Germany isn’t a great example if you’re trying to illustrate what a free and unshackled people are capable of doing when left to their own devices.

    Anything but.

    • September 24, 2013 at 9:08 am

      I’m not getting you, Percival.

      The article’s argument was that lane discipline, yielding to faster moving traffic makes driving safer for everyone – and that such habits are more effective and thus preferable to mindless laws dictating Thou shallt Not Drive Faster Than “X” speed.

      I mentioned the German Autobahn as an example supporting that argument.

      You’re going off on tangents – to what end I cannot fathom.

  18. percival
    September 24, 2013 at 8:46 am

    .>> And they will continue to do so despite mandatory inspections.

    You need to become more familiar with zee Fatherland.

    They have fines in proportion to one’s income! Traffic tickets aren’t blow-offs like they are here.

    There’s no free lunch. I get the impression, maybe wrongly, that there’s an admiration for the inherent discipline of the German folk or something. Driver’s ed isn’t a gimme. It’s damn near vocational training which you can’t take til you’re 18.

    • September 24, 2013 at 9:03 am

      All true, Percival.

      But, again, my query is whether a given law (or fine) is legitimate. Not whether it is legal.

      My position is that no one deserves to be interfered with in any way whatsoever unless he’s caused a real harm to an actual person or property.

      Not might. Not because “someone” might.

      If I drive a car with defective brakes and cause an accident, hold me responsible. But don’t hold you responsible for what I did by forcing you to waste your time/money having your vehicle “inspected.”

      Similarly, driving itself. If I am able to operate my vehicle without losing control and causing damage or harm to others/their property then – ipso facto – I am a competent driver. I don’t need bureaucratic affirmations or permission slips.

      The fallacy underlying so much of collectivist thought is that the collective is wiser than the individual. But how can this be, given the collective is composed of individuals?

      Seinfeld put it pithily:

      Who are these people?

      Just so.

      They are no one special and certainly not entitled to rule you – or me.

      Self-ownership, Percival. And individual responsibility.

  19. percival
    September 24, 2013 at 8:17 am

    You’re with me?

    If cars are doing 140mph, it’s not reasonable to insist that head-lights are working.

    Pookie’s habit of driving with one headlight out and one on constant high beam isn’t a good idea if he wants to reach speeds which make his steering wheel rattle.

    • September 24, 2013 at 8:26 am

      Well, maybe not!

      I didn’t get into those other subjects, as explained.

      Do I support “implied consent” – that is, random and probable-cause-free “checks”?

      No, I do not.

      Do I support mandatory vehicle inspections?

      No, I do not.

      I maintain my vehicles. Why should I be compelled to waste my time and my money – as well as hand my vehicle over to some guy who may manhandle it and then leave me holding the bag for any damage – on the basis that “someone else” might not maintain their vehicle?

      Is that not exactly like arguing for “reasonable” restrictions on my right to possess a firearm – on the basis that some people may or have handled their firearms negligently or criminally?

      Will some people drive cars that have bald tires, or worn-out brakes (and so on) absent mandatory inspections? Certainly. And they will continue to do so despite mandatory inspections.

      Perfect safety is a chimera.

      I believe in holding individuals individually responsible for any harm they’ve caused. I do not believe in collectivist policies that sweep up groups of people and punish individuals not for what they’ve done but rather because “someone” might do something.

  20. greenville7
    September 24, 2013 at 8:10 am

    In Virginia, where I first drove, there used to be signs, posted frequently, that said “KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT TO PASS”. There gone now. What happened?

  21. percival
    September 24, 2013 at 7:43 am

    That’s an interesting comparison; to Germany.

    Implied consent for DUIs in Germany: “Like it or not, we’re taking your blood.” Cracking the window and sliding out your lawyer’s business card doesn’t fly there.

    Vehicle inspection lanes. What?? No reasonable suspiscion??? That’s exactly right. Don’t need it.

    • September 24, 2013 at 7:55 am

      I’m with you, Percival.

      Of course, those are separate issues.

      I referenced the Autobahn’s unlimited speeds to make the point that arbitrary speed limits do not necessarily mean “safer” driving conditions.

      Implied consent, forced searches – etc. – those are meat for another meal!

    • Eightsouthman
      September 24, 2013 at 10:36 am

      For a couple years now Texas troopers can hold you down and take your blood. Your alternative, getting killed and then taking your blood. Last year this Susan King cunt(I don’t say that lightly)got a law passed here by the goons in Austin where when you’re in the hospital on life support, no matter what you or family members or anyone else thinks, the attending physician has the right to determine if that patient continues or is removed. Of course the insurance lobby and the hospital administrators dearly love this law.

  22. libertyx
    September 24, 2013 at 1:46 am

    Not much will change until we abolish the Clover-run – forced to pay forever – government schools. There must be freedom-of-choice, i.e., competition, in education, or the output of sheeple will continue.

    • DownshiftFast5to1
      September 24, 2013 at 3:08 am

      Oh it seems that way, libertyx.
      I hope it happens well before then.
      I feel so bad for the younger generation in many ways, but at the same time, I hope they have it better.

      On my reading list:

      A Lesson Plan for Raising Up Compliant, Non-Thinking Citizens

      http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/09/a-lesson-plan-for-raising-up-compliant.html

      • Garysco
        September 24, 2013 at 3:49 am

        @Downshift – It is worse than you think. In the book “Ayn Rand the voice of Reason”, Leonard Piekoff wrote chapter 20 – The American School: Why Johnny can’t Think (I know because your post made me look it up). Quote from April 1984.

        FRIGG’N 1984, BEFORE TEACHER UNION PAY RAISES, MY HONOR STUDENT bumper stickers and the coup de grâce of IDIOCRACY -COMMON CORE!

        OK. Let me start over:

        “Last November, a new academic achievement test was given to some six hundred sixth-grade students in eight industrialized countries. The American students, chosen to be representative of the nation, finished dead last in mathematics, miles behind the Japanese, and sixth out of eight in science. As to geography, twenty percent of the Americans at one school could not find the U.S. on a world map.”

        The rest of the chapter gets worse, with explanations.
        No wonder clovers are the norm.

        • DownshiftFast5to1
          September 24, 2013 at 4:13 am

          Garysco wrote, “It is worse than you think. ”

          So far,… it hasn’t been.
          Not by a long shot.

          And that’s the scary part. Because my thoughts freak EVERBODy out.
          Well ok, except maybe, Tor.

          It really is a coin toss.
          Freak the hell out of everyone, or freedom and liberty for everyone.
          …Which way do you think it will go at first?

        • Garysco
          September 24, 2013 at 4:22 am

          @Downshift – Oh sure. After posting the above I go look at the news. What do I find? This little gem:

          A fake Apple advert claiming the new iOS 7 software makes iPhones and iPads waterproof has apparently fooled some users into destroying their devices.

          The “advert” circulating on social media sites claims that updating devices with the operating system installs a “smart switch” that cuts off the phone’s power supply when water is detected.

          This, it claims, “prevents any damage to your iPhone’s delicate circuitry”.

          The advert looks remarkably similar to an authentic Apple advertisement, with the same plain white background and minimalist font and style.

          It seems some users have been fooled into dunking their expensive gadgets into water to test out the promised feature, only to render their devices useless.

    • September 24, 2013 at 6:53 am

      That’s a big part of it, Libertyx.

      One positive in that regard is the uptick in homeschooling. Though still a small minority, there are nonetheless probably hundreds of thousands, even millions, of families who’ve “opted out” of Clover Training.

  23. albertchampion
    September 24, 2013 at 1:40 am

    so, driving at high speeds is a dangerous thing to do, right?

    and if that is the case, then why does the usg and other governments allow auto manufacturers to manufacture vehicles that can do 0-60 in under 5 seconds?

    you clovers tell me, if speed is so unsafe, why doesn’t the usg, and other governments, mandate that no vehicle can have an engine of larger than 2000cc displacement? and is governed to not exceed the maximum posted limits?

    in other words, if the feds thought that speed was as dangerous as oxycontin, cocaine, marijuana, why wouldn’t they be making it impossible for vehicles to exceed their maximum speed limits?

    • DownshiftFast5to1
      September 24, 2013 at 3:04 am

      Perfect reply, albertchampion.

      They should all just ride mopeds?

      Clover, you’re ok with mandatory mopeds for everyone, right?

      …Oh wait, I forgot, clovers Never answer questions.

      Could you imagine a nation of moped drivers?
      Ha!
      Moped truckers?!
      HAHA!
      Tiny payloads, delivered at half the time, er’ 1-100th the time.
      My Bonkey might be able to compete then.
      Bring on the buggy whips!

      • Eightsouthman
        September 24, 2013 at 5:49 am

        I used to haul around a 10 speed bike but knew other truckers who had actual Mopeds they used.

  24. Tor Minotaur
    September 23, 2013 at 8:26 pm

    Taiwan Truck Dispenses Car-ma to Speed Up-Slow Down Clover

    Russian Evens Road Car-ma With Driver Who Cut Him Off

    Running Red Light While Flipping Someone Off Brings Car-ma

    • Garysco
      September 23, 2013 at 8:40 pm

      Damn Tor. That’s where Bevin hangs out. I promise not to piss him off anymore.

      • September 24, 2013 at 1:39 pm

        Dear Gary,

        Don’t worry. That wasn’t me!

        • Garysco
          September 24, 2013 at 1:42 pm

          @Bevin – Is there a lot of those zero tolerance guys? If so Darwin could pack his bags and come back to the US.

  25. joeallen
    September 23, 2013 at 7:04 am

    Regarding police speeding. Here in Oz our top speed limit is 110 kph. In Feb. 2010 I was returning to my home out west of Melbourne when a cop pulls in front of me on the Western Highway, hits the fast lane immediately, and proceeds over the next 5 minutes to speed up to 135 kph in a 110 zone. No flashing lights or siren going. That same night 5 teens got killed in a car wreck going too fast for the conditions. We got the usual parade of top thugs urging us to slow down. Since then, I have 2X followed cops going in excess of the speed limit. Apparently the speed limits do not apply to cops. Here in Oz we have our share of clovers, and they act the same as in Eric’s highly factual essays on malfunctioning clovers. Fortunately there are places in Oz where you can go for a whole day without seeing a blueboy, and go well in excess of the speed limit on some really good roads.

  26. MoT
    September 22, 2013 at 6:34 pm

    I’ve had idiots rush to pass me only to then sit in the left lane and block any movement. In fact I, in a big rig, and everyone else passed this knucklehead from the right lane. Simply mind bogglingly stupid. To up the ante on that tale I had some poindexter risk his life and the lives of everyone else by squeezing his ass between two trucks with barely room for his vehicle alone. This while I’m in the act of passing the truck from the left lane! Scared the bejesus out of me. The end result? He gets off at the next exit! Sweet lord almighty. Beam me out of here Scotty.

    • Eightsouthman
      September 22, 2013 at 7:18 pm

      MoT, no shit. And long ago when Alabama had no interstate so you had to take little dangerous roads we were churning up a mountain to only have it fall off and let us get some speed. SL say 45 so that’s what I’m doing since tx. trucks are more than fair game there. I come around a curve, hanging on tractor and trailer brakes both due to the grade and a sign says School Bus Loading. No shit, a school bus was loading a bunch of kids and I couldn’t stop so I hit the shoulder, something that didn’t exist anywhere else, and slid past the damned bus, messing my drawers in the process. I get stopped, no kids are hit so the school bus takes off and I get to follow it the next 20 miles. I was mainly worried about retaliation but it must evidently be common. I went though Alabama once again and then thought, What the hell are you doing? Never been back, been back to the same port but not through Ala.

      • Ed
        September 22, 2013 at 8:48 pm

        MoT and 8, here’s y’all a trucker’s song by ARA:

      • Boothe
        September 24, 2013 at 9:44 am

        Eightsouthman – Alabama; you gotta love it. I was on my way from Ft. Walton Bch., Fla. to Biloxi, Miss. back in ’80 on I-10. As I was passing under the river at Mobile in the Wallace tunnel I hear what sounds like a semi running open pipes coming up behind me fast. I was riding a ’75 Yamaha RD 350 with no turn signals, speedo or mirrors. I was in the right lane and glanced over my shoulder (at around 75 – 80 MPH) and see a group of bikers gaining on me like their asses were on fire. Then these one percenters (they were wearing colors, but I didn’t get a good enough look to ID them) proceed to pass me *on both sides* in my lane well in excess of 100 MPH. I nearly pulled a butt pucker in the seat vinyl. The roar I heard coming up on me was from those 7 straight pipe hawgs echoing down that tunnel. When I came out into daylight again, these yay-hoos were alrteady up on the Water St. overpass still hauling the mail! I’m guessing they had a good laugh at the bar over scaring “rice burner boy” half to death. It apparently never occurred to them that if I’d sneezed we’d have all been a mass of sliding hamburger and twisted steel or maybe they just didn’t give a rat’s ass. But either way I’ll sure never forget it.

        • Eightsouthman
          September 24, 2013 at 12:07 pm

          Boothe, I hate to pick on Alabama but it’s so easy. The wife and I coming back from the east coast. I hadn’t slept since leaving Tx. so I was in one of those states of mind. We’re going through Selma and I start in with my NatGeo voice describing the historic town and bridge we’re about to pass over. The wife’s taking it all in, with a sneer on her face. She finally says in a disgusted way “I hope to f— you’re not going to stop here”. 20 miles away I was still busting out laughing.

  27. September 22, 2013 at 11:15 am

    Right lane driving is pretty much expected in Wyoming everywhere, but it doesn’t much solve the problem of the too slow driver because a great many of the roads here are one lane each way. There are passing lanes here and there, but long stretches of winding roads without any safe way to pass as well. The only saving grace is the fact that there are seldom more than a few cars on the road at any given time, even in town. We have one stop light (totally useless) in the town near me, and it is very rare for a car to be stopped at all four corners. Not a line of vehicles… A vehicle. LOL Heck, I’ve been the only moving thing on Main Street in the middle of the day a few times. In the beginning (coming from So. Calif.) it was a very weird feeling to get on the freeway and be one of only three or four cars as far as I could see in either direction.

    • Garysco
      September 22, 2013 at 4:05 pm

      @Mama said “The only saving grace is the fact that there are seldom more than a few cars on the road at any given time, even in town.”

      Mama, I have been though Wyo. There are seldom any cars in the whole state. :) 1/2 a tank of gas between big cities like Rock Springs and Lander. Been to Muddy Gap? The loneliest gas station in the lower 48.

      • September 22, 2013 at 4:39 pm

        Yes, I went through Muddy Gap once, when I was moving here. Didn’t buy gas in Rawlins, for some reason that escapes me now. The station was closed in Lamont, and we barely made it to Three Forks. Best not to travel that part of the country at night anyway. If you break down, you will sit for a long time. No cell service then, 8 years ago, thought there might be some since. But there’s nobody to call anyway. :)

        Best be prepared and self sufficient to drive far in this part of the country. But I wouldn’t trade that for the congestion and insanity of driving in Los Angeles for anything.

  28. JoePA
    September 22, 2013 at 10:21 am

    I never wrote any tickets for speeding because I was city not highway patrol. Speed limits in the city are a joke only because of the mass congestion. Speed limits were designed (in my opinion) by people because it sounds “safe”. In reality it does nothing but generate revenue for the state. I’m a confessed “speeder” yet have only been involved in one accident in which I was rear ended.

    This topic goes back to my post on another topic. You have a license……..if you get into too many accidents you lose your license. Speeding enforcement becomes pointless if you never cause harm to anyone else. The natural reaction for someone who is an unsafe driver, driving on drugs, unsafe vehicle or is DUI is to go slow.

    If you have never harmed anyone you should be allowed to drive as you please!

    • September 22, 2013 at 11:19 am

      Morning, Joe!

      Excellent post. I agree completely.

      I’ve long argued that the sole objective criteria of “unsafe” driving is causing an accident. Put another way, if you don’t wreck, then you must be doing something right.

      I also don’t like the term, “accident” because it implies an act of god, something beyond one’s control. But most “accidents” are the result of driver error. An accident, properly speaking, is essentially unavoidable. A deer jumping out in front of you, for instance. Or a tree limb falling on your car. Etc.

      It’s infuriating to be penalized for infractions of the law that may not (and very often do not) have any correlation to whether one was in control of his car, driving competently, etc. And, it demeans/dumbs-down legitimate enforcement efforts. For example, the law does not consider the half-blind old lady who drives 20 below the posted limit and wanders over the double yellow “impaired” – but will crucify the driver who is caught at a sobriety checkpoint with a nominal BAC, even if his driving could not be faulted. It’s preposterous – and it’s counterproductive, if the true object is “safety” on the road.

      • Ed
        September 22, 2013 at 4:46 pm

        “I also don’t like the term, “accident” because it implies an act of god, something beyond one’s control.”

        To me it just implies an unintended result. Maybe someone is negligent and what he does causes damage or injury, but as long as “he didn’t go to do it” as the old timers say, then it’s an accident.

        • September 22, 2013 at 5:11 pm

          Negligent, Ed. Any harm done that is not intentional or truly unavoidable, is negligence of one kind or another.

          How many times have we read about the “unintended discharges” by police or others… with the attempt to shrug it off as an “accident.”

          There is no such thing as an accidental discharge of a firearm. There is only a deliberate shot or a negligent discharge. Even the malfunction of a gun or other tool does not usually result in harm to others if the rules for safe tool use (and maintenance) are followed.

          Something that is completely unavoidable can happen, of course, but that can’t excuse those who are careless and foolish.

          • Eightsouthman
            September 22, 2013 at 5:44 pm

            MamaLiberty, you just contradicted yourself. Something that’s completely unavoidable often happens….and no one could see it coming. I’m reminded of getting on I-20 one day pulling a big trailer so I was humping it hard to try to get to 60 so I could pull that next hill and just happened to fall in behind a cattle hauler that just sucked me into him, felt like I’d gained 50 hp and as I got right on his tail, I noticed the first sign I’d ever seen that said Shit Happens. At that instant I realized the trailer was shut up, hence full of cattle. I backed off and got maybe 100′ away before a big cow started pissing through the slats and covered us up. A couple guys with me were dying laughing as was I. Well, we were warned said the guy beside me. Yes, we certainly were. Not as good as an example of my presence at a wreck to which I said to a cop, Who coulda guessed? to which he replied That’s why they call them accidents. Sorta like when I pulled the trigger on that old .22 and it ran out 3, who coulda known?

          • Ed
            September 22, 2013 at 6:12 pm

            Yeah, you’re right. What I’m getting at is that calling something an accident doesn’t equate to dismissing it as an act of God. If you slip on your icy front steps and bust your ass, that’s an accident, because you didn’t go to do it, you were trying to go down the steps. If your old man then says you were negligent, you might bust HIS ass, while telling him that it was an accident, ain’t that right?

          • September 23, 2013 at 6:14 am

            No, Eightsouthman, there’s no contradiction in what I said. If you have taken reasonable care, aren’t doing something intentionally stupid, and harm occurs, it’s likely an “accident.” I covered that. Eric’s definition is fine.

            Any time harm occurs and there is an element (nothing is pure) of carelessness or intentional stupidity, it’s not an accident but an act of negligence.

            The problem is the attitude. If more of these wrecks, unintended discharges, etc. were CALLED negligence, instead of shrugged off as mere “accidents” without anyone taking responsibility, maybe fewer of them would happen.

  29. Doug
    September 21, 2013 at 7:11 pm

    I live in Germany for 6 months each year – April to September.
    While the Autobahnen are crowded, the fact is, there are many place one can drive quickly during the week. It depends upon where you are and when. Few people drive 120MPH (about 190Km/h in Real World measurement) no matter what the conditions are but 160Km/h is no big deal – even on the unrestricted sections of the crowded A8.
    Drivers are required to keep right except to pass – the RIGHT lane on a 2 lane Autobahn and the RIGHT lane on a 3 lane Autobahn (NOT the middle lane). No matter what your speed, if a faster car is coming from behind, you move over when possible – even if this causes you to slow a bit because other cars in this lane are traveling at a speed less than yours. If you are driving in the middle lane and you see a vehicle in the right lane moving at a greater speed than other vehicles in his lane, you are expected to move to the left so he can overtake them. This is why watching your mirrors is as important as watching the road.

    Contrary to popular American belief:
    Flashing your lights or turning-on your left blinker to tell the person you are following to move over is illegal.
    If you are involved in an accident which is not your fault and you were driving over 130Km/h you MAY be held PARTIALLY responsible – not fully.
    The average speed on unrestricted Autobahnen is ca. 140Km/h and 85% of these vehicles travel 115Km/h – 170Km/h.

  30. MikePizzo
    September 21, 2013 at 5:16 pm

    Oh my…Hate to find my comments in synch with Clover……even once. But he does have a valid point about congestion.

    • DownshiftFast5to1
      September 21, 2013 at 6:09 pm

      Why is the Autobahn not congested?

      Schools of fish and flocks of birds have something over mankind.

      Also, I guess it depends on what your idea of congested is?

      Some Interstates I’ve been on that I considered congested seemed to flow well at what I thought were high speeds.

      • September 21, 2013 at 6:14 pm

        I used to drive I-95 from DC to Richmond fairly often.

        It was routine to operate at 90 MPH – in traffic – because traffic was moving that fast, too.

        Clover – as usual – hasn’t got an intellectual/factual pot to piss in!

        • MikePizzo
          September 22, 2013 at 1:28 pm

          I’d love to see you try to drive the 405 (San Diego Fwy ) through the L A Basin…..either direction…on any weekday, between 6:00 AM and 9:00 PM.

          • MikePizzo
            September 22, 2013 at 1:37 pm

            Love to see you try to drive “90 miles per hour” there, is what I meant to say. Most of that stretch was designed in the 1950s. ;-)

          • September 22, 2013 at 1:53 pm

            Done it!

            No fun.

            But the 405 is not I-40 through the Middle of NoPlace, TN. Or I-81 in rural Virginia.

          • Boothe
            September 24, 2013 at 11:29 am

            MikePizzo – A friend of mine told me how to deal with LA traffic; you simply do it on a motorcycle. http://lanesplittingislegal.com/

  31. MikePizzo
    September 21, 2013 at 5:12 pm

    Eric,
    I’m with you in condemning left lane bandits.

    But I have to dispute your conclusions about our highways being designed so even stone age, 1950s cars could safely drive 75. All other things being equal, it “would” make sense that modern cars could safely drive much faster on the same roads. But all other things Are Not equal. You know that most of those highways are far more congested than they were when those crew cut 1950s engineers calculated what speeds would be “safe.” Higher congestion requires lower speeds to maintain an equal level of safety.

    There are some locations with ultra modern, 6+ lane freeways built within the last decade that are still relatively uncrowded. On those roads, speeds much higher than 75 could be very safe. But if you’re talking about the highways built back in the 1950s….I’m not buying it. Most of them are way more crowded than those 1950s engineers could ever have imagined.

    • Len
      September 24, 2013 at 10:42 am

      Ok, but how much of that congestion is actually due to volume, rather than the oblivioids (you may read “clover”) scattered throughout the lanes creating slowdowns? I’ve witnessed many a time what appeared to be a high volume of traffic, but once able to see enough of the road, I espied a pocket here and there and there were various numbnutskys were just toddling along oblivious to what was going on around them.

  32. skunkbear
    September 21, 2013 at 12:05 pm

    Instead of writing tickets for “speeding” the cops should be writing tickets to those who impede the flow of traffic especially those in the passing lane. “Slower traffic keep right” signs would not be needed if we had better restrictions on keeping the stupid off the roads.

    In Ohio just a few years ago trucks could only go 55 on the interstate. Then a couple of years ago they were allowed to go 65. Now they can go 70. Nothing was done to the roads and nothing was done to the trucks to make these speed limits safer for them. So why the difference in these speed limits? Purely arbitrary safety nazis changing their minds on what is “safe” and what is not.

    • clover
      September 21, 2013 at 1:31 pm

      Cloveryes so they changed the speed limit. Guys like you were complaining and cars got safer so they increased the speed limit to traffic flow. Now idiots like you still drive the same speed over the limit as you did before the change. You again are causing poor driving conditions and safety. It does not matter what the speed limit is to guys like you. You have to drive faster than other drivers no matter what the limit. You cause poor traffic flow. Clover

      As for Brent saying he has no problem keeping right except to pass? Guys like you say you are always passing so in effect you are a left lane owner! The problem with guys like you that say to keep right except to pass and stay in the left lane is you would never allow another driver over if they get stuck behind a slower vehicle in their lane. They learn that over time and stay in the left lane. It is jerks like you that are causing your own complaints1Clover

      • EricB
        September 21, 2013 at 2:47 pm

        the ramblings are difficult enough to comprehend without the big clover leaves. With them, I give up even faster. Nothing new to see there anyway, the man speaks as boobus americanus would. And they have the power of numbers on our roads, unfortunately.

        P.S. those west texas highways are fantastic! Your soul can actually breathe for a change… German ones are great as well, but not as much breathing room :(

        • clover
          September 21, 2013 at 4:03 pm

          CloverYes EricB that is why some of the roads you talk about have 80 mph speed limits. They are not congested. All the people here talk about unlimited speed limits in Germany. They fail to say that with the number of cars on the road there is a limit. They say on here that in Germany it is keep right except to pass. That is not true exactly. They say it is impossible on a normal day to drive 120 mph on such roads with the traffic because it is impossible to change lanes every few seconds like you would have to with that many cars and differences in speeds.. The more cars per mile you have on the road the slower you have to go. That is a a law of physics but stupid people do not understand that.

          • EricB
            September 25, 2013 at 3:02 pm

            Who said anything about going 80? Going into the davis mountains I think I hit 120 with not a soul around :)

            Outside of large german cities the autobahn is pretty thick – but once you get out into less populous areas you can really put the hammer down. My experience was that the left lane was kept empty though…as my german uncle said, the autobahn is deliberately engineered to actually let you get to where you’re going!

      • Garysco
        September 21, 2013 at 6:10 pm

        There you go again clover. Arguing with your made up straw man in a vacuum. Why do you post here when you can’t hold the thought long enough to make a logical connection from one of your thoughts to another?

        • Eightsouthman
          September 25, 2013 at 11:31 pm

          EricB, it was the Davis Mountains we’d head for each summer as an extended family, a line of cars doing 100mph full of kids and adults. Rarely was a DPS seen and the thought of being stopped for any reason was ludicrous. Gas stations back then had outhouses since they had no water for most of them. All my life I remember vacations as being trips doing 90-100mph the whole way since there was basically the same thing to see as we saw every day for 400 miles in any direction. Piney woods of east Texas would finally loom, wow, trees. South Texas friends, rows of crops…just like home….mountains of NM, wow, trees, everywhere else…wow, desert, drier than home. We didn’t go too far east, scary stuff there and nothing really to see…Arkansas, Ok. We traveled more miles than just about anybody on vacation, like going through the entire east coast from N to S…except civilized ha ha.

      • BrentP
        September 22, 2013 at 11:35 pm

        Clover, I spend most of my driving time in the right lanes. It’s amazing how you twist things in the moment. It wasn’t that long ago you were claiming I was in the wrong because I proceeded at my chosen pace in the clear right lanes when clovers were in the left lanes blocking them.

        • September 23, 2013 at 5:34 am

          Clover can’t stay on point; he just erupts like a Vesuvious of hysteria, spewing his “lava” in all directions!

      • Gil
        September 23, 2013 at 6:33 am

        Exactly Clover! Eric & co. want no speed limit at all because they’re aspiring to drive at least 120mph wherever they go because they have high-powered cars and, dern it, they want to use them to their full potential.

        • September 23, 2013 at 7:53 am

          And what would be wrong with that, Clover?

          If the driver is skilled, if the car is capable?

          Your obsession with arbitrary numbers is pathetic.

          What makes 55 “safe”? Or “75”?

          Why not limit everyone to 25 MPH? That would be even “safer,” right?

          No? Why?

          Because your comfort level is with 55 or 65. You believe that speed strikes the right balance between “safety” and efficient travel.

          But my comfort level may be higher – and my belief is just as valid as yours.

          Both can coexist, too. Provided you don’t drive in a way that deliberately obstructs me – or insist I be punished merely because I drive faster than you or some government agency decrees to be “lawful.”

        • BrentP
          September 23, 2013 at 10:25 am

          120mph is quite safe and comfortable when on a good road where other drivers are disciplined. In Germany it is quite comfortable in good weather.

          Illinois state troopers drive 120mph all the time here where the roads have random patches and the drivers in general lack discipline.

          You could remove the speed limits from interstates and on my normal drives, unless the other drivers changed, my speed would probably stay within 5mph of where it is now.

      • Garysco
        September 26, 2013 at 2:02 pm

        Clover said – “It does not matter what the speed limit is to guys like you. You have to drive faster than other drivers no matter what the limit. You cause poor traffic flow.”

        Bingo!

        Clover has decoded the Rosetta Stone of the discussion and doesn’t even know it. Bravo clover. You may now go on posting , knowing it is “the others who cause poor traffic flow”.

        BTW clover – The 55 MPH limit of the 80’s was due to insane government puppies and unicorns policy, shoved down our throats by guys like you, in order to save the planet by consuming less refined organic liquid fuel. It was not about safety. That is why the hue and cry made your worshipful masters lift it.

    • Len
      September 24, 2013 at 10:37 am

      It does happen, albeit very rarely, a ticket being issued for impeding the flow that is.

  33. BrentP
    September 21, 2013 at 11:52 am

    I should have saved the video of me moving right after completing a pass for a guy in an old BMW doing 90+mph. Called it “what clovers won’t do”.

    I have no trouble at all keeping right except to pass. Why do you Clover? Because you’re a lazy driver and you expect everyone else on the road to cater to you.

    You consistently defend lazy driving. Not timing gaps, not using mirrors properly, not even using turn signals. You defend people who change lanes willy nilly. You defend people who just pull out into traffic without concern because if they waited for a gap that might take too long…. but then in such hypocrisy proclaim that people who drive faster than you are impatient. You’re not even patient enough to wait for a gap in traffic. So why on earth should someone add 20-30 minutes to their drive to move at a 55mph PSL when you can’t even wait a few seconds?

  34. clover
    September 21, 2013 at 10:11 am

    Just one question Eric, show me the law that states that faster cars have more rights than slower cars? Show me that law?Clover

    Show me the law that states that now the speed limit has increased to 70 mph you have the right to drive 90 mph. Show me that law Eric?
    Clover
    Of all the videos that I have seen of people complaining about slower cars blocking the left lane I have seen none showing someone driving the speed limit or slower in the left lane unless the road is congested. Why is that Eric? Why the lack of videos? If the road is congested, tell me Eric why all the other cars you want to be delayed or slowed just to allow a select few to drive faster? Why would you have more rights than other drivers?

    Eric if you like driving so much better in other countries then move there. We are not stopping you! By the way, where Germany has speed limits you do not see drivers drive 20 mph faster than the speed limit. You do not see 90 mph speed limits or unlimited speed limits around major cities in Germany.

    • BrentP
      September 21, 2013 at 11:44 am
      • clover
        September 21, 2013 at 2:23 pm

        CloverWhat is the point of the charts? Does it show that America has a higher death rate on the interstates because Germany has more enforcement on drunk drivers and a lower limit BAC limit? Does it show they have a lower death rate because drivers in Germany call into the police reckless drivers they see on the highway? Does it show that America has a higher death rate because they do not enforce tailgating? Does it show that America has a higher death rate because Germany does not allow weaving through traffic? Brent does it show that Germany has better driving conditions because they get poor drivers like you off the highway?

        • ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
          September 21, 2013 at 10:25 pm

          Clover, ya really need to go back to the drawing board with your silly arguments and watch this:

          Or heal thyself with a bigger hammer!

          • Mithrandir
            September 22, 2013 at 5:31 pm

            ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N ,

            I think this can be summed as follows (14:48)

            SPEED STILL KILLS
            your pocketbook because the
            government ignored the best
            scientific advice they were given
            after spending piles of your
            tax money to get it.

        • BrentP
          September 22, 2013 at 11:29 pm

          It shows speed does not kill. That’s what it shows.
          Now keep right except to pass. Stop being one of Joan Claybrook’s interstate slalom cones.

    • Eightsouthman
      September 21, 2013 at 12:01 pm

      clover, I’ll ask one of my friends to video slower traffic(85mph and less)on I-10 blocking traffic since that’s what those speeds cause, blocked traffic. One reason I don’t see many videos at this speed is certainly due to people being busy DRIVING and not jacking with cell phones. I’ve come upon cars from other states actually going the speed limit(80mph)on this road and the bottlenecks and jams they cause are very dangerous. If YOU attempted to drive from El Paso to Orange at 60mph, you might very well suffer Toxic Shock Syndrome unless you stopped every few hours and changed your tampon. You must drive to the conditions.

      • clover
        September 21, 2013 at 1:22 pm

        CloverEightsouthman I have your solution. Have cops stop anyone driving over your 80 mph and you would have great traffic flow! Get the idiots off the road that drive dangerously to save your 6% savings in time! You have to drive 100s of miles for that to make a significant difference. If everyone drove your 80 mph limit you would never have dangerous conditions you talk about. I have been on roads where there was enforcement above the 70 mph or 75 mph limits. Perfect traffic flow! No dangerous conditions like you are saying! I got across those states in a timely manner. No stress or dangerous driving that you talk about.Clover

        • Eightsouthman
          September 21, 2013 at 5:06 pm

          clover, WTF is it with you? I never said everybody drove 85 or even 90. For the most part, traffic flows at about 90, not a thing you can do about that and the state for the most part doesn’t try. 90 is about the minimum with many people driving well over 100….and why not? The roads are huge so the very limited curves you can see around and the actual curve itself generates next to nothing in lateral acceleration so why would people not travel at what they’re comfortable in driving? I only use the inside lane to pass and don’t pass when I see somebody coming up fast behind me, just makes sense doesn’t it? If I weren’t driving a one ton pickup I’d be one of those doing 100+ and why not? I always buy high speed rated tires and when I drive, I do just that, drive, don’t dick around, talk to other people on the phone or rubberneck. If you want to see the scenery, there is an access road you can drive 60 on and never be hassled. Even the state of Texas, that’s coughed up the dough(my dough, everybody else’s dough)to have traffic surveys done has admitted that really fast traffic is safe if Everybody is going close to the same speed. It’s only when some dick pulls up into a large amount of traffic that happen to be side by side for that moment and keeps the fast lane slow that people lose their patience and start to do things that are dangerous. I nearly had an accident last year on I-20 where an ancient woman was doing about 40mph while the rest of the traffic was going 80. The guy in front of me almost wrecked with a pickup on a car hauler who just didn’t realize he was closing on a vehicle that quickly and then I almost did the same thing after watching him. I never realized she was going THAT slow. Meanwhile, she was oblivious to everyone else. I don’t say 80 on I-10 is in and of itself dangerous, only when all the other traffic is moving at least 90. The high performance cars that are going 100-115 are making one hell of a lot better time than your 6% you quote. If I’m on cruise and passing someone slowly and I see traffic approaching rapidly I’ll kick it in the ass and get on around them to avoid a blockage. This isn’t so hard to understand is it? Yes, all of us will be speeding by quite a bit but with everybody going at least 90, the chances of someone running up on a blockage is much less and that makes everybody safer. BTW, speed limits in Texas are suggestions and not firm to the “speed limit” sign.

          • clover
            September 23, 2013 at 8:13 am

            CloverYou bring up your example of a single slow driver a year ago that was causing accident conditions. That was a stupid example. That is not a clover. That is a driver that should not be there. There are minimum speed laws on most interstates. I can say the same thing about your fast drivers. There were two incidents of fast drivers I was behind by many minutes but they actually killed people and each case delayed me by hours. If you want to get rid of dangerous driving then you want more cars to drive the same speed. 90 mph is not that speed. Your truck I am sure is not going to go that speed. At 90 mph it takes a semi forever to be able to stop if they have a full load.

            I hope your gas price is cheap down there because your 40 mpg car if you had one is going to get about 25 mpg +- at that speed.

          • Garysco
            September 23, 2013 at 2:59 pm

            Someone help me. Every time I try to decipher a clover post my mind keeps sending me a tune:

            I don’t know where I’m running now, I’m just running on
            Running on-running on empty
            Running blind
            Running into the sun
            But I’m running behind

          • nckamdar
            September 24, 2013 at 7:13 am

            I read once that one should never argue with an idiot. They will bring you down to their level and beat you from their sheer experience of being idiots. Better still lets work on getting rid of the speed limits and then reality will proove the wisdom of that move.

          • September 24, 2013 at 9:30 am

            Nckamdar wrote:-

            I read once that one should never argue with an idiot [sic]. They [sic] will bring you down to their [sic] level and beat you from their [sic] sheer experience of being idiots [sic – you have been matching plurals with a singular].

            That sentiment goes back at least as far as Proverbs 26:4: “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him”. But that is carefully presented along with the contrasting Proverbs 26:5: “Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit”. It is important to judge which advice suits the situation, which is probably why those two proverbs were presented together; their conjunction sets things up for comparing and contrasting.

            Just for luck, here are a couple of other proverbs that I also find amusing (which means “instructive” as well as “entertaining”): Proverbs 21:9, “It is better to dwell in a corner of the housetop, than with a brawling woman in a wide house”; and Proverbs 21:19, “It is better to dwell in the wilderness, than with a contentious and an angry woman”.

        • DownshiftFast5to1
          September 21, 2013 at 11:00 pm

          Clover roars, “save your 6% savings in time! ”

          I wonder how clovers differentiate between people who just want to get someplace sooner, and say, someone rushing to the hospital?
          Do you suppose a 6% savings in time might be the difference between life or death for some people?

          I do believe there have been a number of documented instances of such. And quite a few times cops slow them down over trivial reasons.

          Or say, someone racing to punch a time clock, if they’re late, they get fired, a family may loose a home, a divorce may happen, a family gets torn apart, all because clover wou;dn’t move over.

          I imagine there are many other examples like that the clovers of the world haven’t thought of while they’re blocking traffic or wishing and hoping a cop would pull someone over and detain them further.

          • September 22, 2013 at 5:52 am

            Clover, of course, is the arbiter of time as well as speed!

            His opinion as to what constitutes a worthwhile time savings; his opinion as to what constitutes a “safe” speed.

            Which would be fine, if he merely constrained himself accordingly.

            But of course, he insists his “rules” apply to us, too.

            That is the essence of Cloverism: Control Freak-ism.

          • Eightsouthman
            September 23, 2013 at 10:21 am

            My mother was having emergency surgery so the friggin troopers just HAD to stop me even though I had emergency flashers going and was quite obviously in a big hurry, not trying to hide in any way. I tell them what’s going on and they start a song and dance. I told them Write me a ticket or cut me loose but I’m leaving right now. Well, you need to slow down blah blah blah. I got back in the car and hauled ass with them dogging me. Dipshits, why not get out in front and get me a clear path? Too simple for simpletons.

          • clover
            September 23, 2013 at 7:41 pm

            CloverDownshiftFast5to1 you crack me up! You say a 6 % savings in time can save someone’s life? I have seen the opposite DownshiftFast5to1. I have seen that need to drive 6% faster kill a few people.

            DownshiftFast5to1 would you have killed yourself 150 years ago when you could only travel 20 to 30 miles per day? It seems to me that they lived just fine at those speeds. They measured travel by days and you need to save a half a second by passing dangerously? What is wrong with that story? It sounds to me that you and others who feel 80 mph or 90 mph or 100 mph to be too slow for you to survive!

          • September 24, 2013 at 6:12 am

            A pseudonymous person wrote:-

            … would you have killed yourself 150 years ago when you could only travel 20 to 30 miles per day? It seems to me that they lived just fine at those speeds. They measured travel by days and you need to save a half a second by passing dangerously? What is wrong with that story?

            Leaving aside the fact that people in developed countries could actually travel at over 40 m.p.h. then (they had things called trains), practical short range solutions were ended by the very changes that motorised transport produced. Before the car, doctors had to have practices within walking distance, shops in towns had to be on every street corner, and so on. Once speeds went up, the distances needed went up too as catchments were rationalised to take advantage of the newly practical increases in distance – so, in an emergency, dawdling to the doctor at two or three times walking pace would kill more people today than running to one and then getting him to visit would have done in earlier times. And so on.

          • Eightsouthman
            September 24, 2013 at 10:16 am

            PM, the wife was researching newspaper records from a 100 years ago for ancestry and kept finding articles about people stepping off a cliff in the dark on the way home, not making the jump on horseback of a fence, running their buggies off the road, all being dead from these things when found. Most articles were brief but told volumes between the lines. Speed kills ha ha ha.

          • Boothe
            September 24, 2013 at 11:22 am

            Eightsouthman, P.M. Lawrence – My great-grandfather was on his way home on horseback one night in rural Virginia. His horse knew its way home just fine in the dark. But a rotten tree had apparently split open near the road and exposed Foxfire. The horse saw it, spooked and threw him off breaking his neck. Then the horse just went on home. There was no “speeding” involved. I’ve been up and down that hill on the same road countless times on motorcycles, as well as in cars and trucks, at night, often traveling at what Clover would consider “unsafe” speeds. Yet I’m still here to tell about it. I’ve never had a car, truck or bike “spook” at the sight of a natural phenomenon and try to throw me at any speed. So much for the good old days.

        • Boothe
          September 22, 2013 at 9:58 am

          Yeah Clover, I know what you mean. Out here I see see a group of guys cruising around Kansas City running 80 – 85 MPH (or faster) in the 65 and 70 MPH zones and I mean routinely. They’re driving brand new cars and snaking through traffic at least 10 – 15 MPH faster than the average driver like they own the road! I’ve followed a couple of these “speed demons” into town and they ended up at the same pizza joint both times. When they got out of their brand new, custom painted Dodge Chargers, they were wearing guns on their hip too! Did I mention this local pizza joint gives the cops free pizza just for coming in? They speed regularly with no lights or siren on to meet up with their fellow tax feeders for free pizza. I see two or three “cruisers” there every time I drive by there after work. No preferential treatment for the restaurant owners or conflict of interest for the cops at that establishment, huh?

          Yeah Clover, I’m talking about the Missouri Highway Patrol. Needless to say, everyone just gets out of their way. Registering a complaint does no good and may even get you singled out for special treatment. And don’t tell me it’s isolated to my vicinity, because I’ve seen it all across the nation from “county mounties” to “HiPo” and they give each other a free pass as a “professional courtesy.” These are the folks that are supposed to be held to a higher standard and set the example for the rest of us. Well there’s your example Clover; if you’re a cop you can “speed” and “slalom” through traffic. Oh and if a cop causes an accident and it’s your word against his, guess who’s fault it will be? How about we enforce “equal protection under the law” with some civilian review boards and hold the feet of these “speeders” and “reckless drivers” to the fire for a change? Do you have a problem with that?

          C’mon Clover, I want to hear your excuses for the “thin blue line” flouting the law with impunity. This should be good…

          • September 22, 2013 at 11:31 am

            Well-said, Boothe!

            I recently posted several videos over at Clover Cam of exactly this – cops speeding. Not just a little, either. One oinker in his unmarked Charger was doing 70 in a 55, the sort of thing he’d issue me a ticket for doing.

            Another time, I paced a state cop on I-81 cruising along at more than 80 – statutory “reckless” driving.

            But not for him.

    • Walker Boh
      September 21, 2013 at 12:11 pm

      Here’s a quick reference: http://www.mit.edu/~jfc/right.html

      • joeallen
        September 23, 2013 at 6:54 am

        In 1979 my family headed to Cal. and were coming back through Kansas doing 80 – 85 mph in our Dodge van. Traffic was light and sparse, hardly a car to be seen. 2 cops get on the road and take each of the 2 lanes doing 55 mph, the national scam limit at the time. Within 30 seconds there was a monstrous traffic jam behind us. [Didn’t know there were so many cars on the road.] Cops continued this way for 2 ramps before getting off. Within 1 minute everyone was back up to speed and the traffic jam disappeared. [Wow, where did all those cars go?]

        Moral of this story: Traffic jams cause accidents, and high speeds do NOT translate into accidents or deaths.

        The increasing density of traffic is due to artificially low speed limits, and incompetent clovers on the road.

        • BrentP
          September 23, 2013 at 10:21 am

          The most dangerous interstate driving I have experienced has been in the tight clusters that form behind cops driving below the mean speed of traffic. It is far safer when the cops are doing 90mph then when they are doing 55-65mph. When they are doing 90 they just pass and are gone not creating traffic bunching up behind them where everyone is trying to get a better spot in the cluster while new drivers come diving in with no clue there is a cop up ahead…

        • clover
          September 23, 2013 at 8:16 pm

          joeallen , tell me how bright that statement is that all we need is more speed to decrease traffic congestion? At 100 mph with a 2 second following distance that is around 300 feet between cars. At 75 mph with a 2 second following distance that is around 220 feet between cars. Explain to me if there is a limited space on a roadway how increased speeds gets rid of congestion? Do the math! You are flat out wrong. Clover

          Think about it, if your speed was 10 thousand miles per hour you could only have one car on the road at a time to be safe and not tailgate. Yes that gets rid of congestion when you can only have one car on the road at a time.

          At 100 mph speeds you would need 600 feet between vehicles to be able to enter between the cars safely from an on ramp.

          • dom
            September 23, 2013 at 8:26 pm

            Clover you never answer any questions. All you do is request people to tell you this or that. How about this.. Why are you even here? What is the purpose of your visits? Even when someone answers one of your questions you never reply. What’s the deal?

            • September 24, 2013 at 7:48 am

              I’ve had more productive conversations with my chickens than I have had with Clover. At least with the chickens, you can wave your arms and herd them back into the coop…

          • September 24, 2013 at 6:52 am

            Dear dom,

            Many here have repeatedly demolished his “arguments,” including yours truly.

            But he merely shines it on, pretends nothing happened, and asks new, unrelated questions.

            The irony is that he may think he is scoring victories this way, and putting something over on others.

            What he doesn’t realize is that third parties who were on the fence will be alienated by his smartass behavior, and increasingly inclined to conclude that his opponents’ arguments are the ones that hold water.

            Imagined tactical “victories” that in reality add up to disastrous strategic losses.

            There is no cheating reality.

          • Ed
            September 24, 2013 at 7:44 am

            “Many here have repeatedly demolished his “arguments,” including yours truly. ”

            And therein lies the rub. This asshole would have moved on to greener pastures long ago if he got no response or only short replies such as “FOAD”.

            Remember the words of the Mattie Ross character in the novel “True Grit” “I won’t bandy words with a drunkard. After all, what have you done when you’ve bested a fool?”

            Giving this cretin any attention at all leads only to his continued annoying presence. He’s been fed until he’s fat as a tick. Hell, even his retarded screen name has been elevated to iconic status.

            Feed a troll and he becomes your constant companion.

          • Ericc
            September 24, 2013 at 2:19 pm

            Why are you here clover? Trolling? Obviously you have the IQ of a watermelon and understand nothing about physics, science, rational thought.

    • Mithrandir
      September 21, 2013 at 4:35 pm

      Why do you want to see a statute? You would not follow it anyway. Yet you expect and demand that others follow PSL and other laws that you like.

      39:4-82 Failure to keep right
      Other states have similar laws. You do not care, since you approve and promote lazy, haphazard driving, as indicated by your many posts.

      In plainer language: All traffic (especially slower traffic) keep to the right except when passing.
      If you can not figure out which lane is the right lane, then you should not drive on a multi-lane highway.

      Your trolling is dull, inane, and vacuous.

      • clover
        September 24, 2013 at 8:21 pm

        Mithrandir you say we should all follow the letter of the law? Why is tailgating, speeding, weaving through traffic, passing in no passing zones, running red light and the other dozens of laws you choose to ignore? why is that? You would not have left lane blockers you call them if idiots like you would allow them to move over when they got behind a slower vehicle and turned on their signal. Guys like you block them from moving over. They learn that and stay in the left lane. I blame you for your own complaints.Clover

    • Garysco
      September 21, 2013 at 4:54 pm

      clover said “Just one question Eric, show me the law that states that faster cars have more rights than slower cars? Show me that law?”

      clover – Here is a starting point that is recognized by the STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
      There are more LAWS by I will not take up all the space on this page, you can look them up for yourself. Are we safer now?

      Slow-Moving Vehicles

      21654. (a) Notwithstanding the prima facie speed limits, any vehicle proceeding upon a highway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time shall be driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.

      (b) If a vehicle is being driven at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time, and is not being driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb, it shall constitute prima facie evidence that the driver is operating the vehicle in violation of subdivision (a) of this section.

      (c) The Department of Transportation, with respect to state highways, and local authorities, with respect to highways under their jurisdiction, may place and maintain upon highways official signs directing slow-moving traffic to use the right-hand traffic lane except when overtaking and passing another vehicle or preparing for a left turn.

      • clover
        September 24, 2013 at 10:33 pm

        Garysco slow moving vehicles by law by any state in our union means vehicles driving under the speed limit and often significantly under the speed limit! Clover

        Example: There are two lanes on the interstate and it is heavy traffic. The right lane traffic all drive at 65 mph. Another driver or drivers want to drive 75 or 10 mph faster than the slower drivers. Another group wants to drive 85 mph. You call the cars or trucks driving 75 mph clovers because they are getting in your way. Are you saying they have no right to pass since they are not driving 85 mph? Do you want them delayed because you have more rights because you want to drive 20 mph faster than the limit?

        • Garysco
          September 24, 2013 at 10:57 pm

          @clover – Just to be nice to you I have read your post 3 times. I still don’t know WTF you are trying to say.

          • DownshiftFast5to1
            September 24, 2013 at 11:33 pm

            Ha! Garysco.
            Same here.

          • Roland
            September 25, 2013 at 8:27 am

            Garysco and Downshift, I hope you know from my previous posts that I do not endorse cloverism, but I must say that you are missing a valid, albeit not very well-stated, point that clover is making. In fact you are exhibiting a cloverish – and decidedly un-libertarian – attitude yourselves.
            Some of us stay close to the posted speed limit for the same reason we pay taxes: we simply do not want to be hassled by the state’s enforcers. Clover’s question deserves an answer. There are two lanes going our direction. He didn’t specify a speed limit but let’s assume 70. I am in the right lane behind traffic that is going 65, but I’m in a hurry and want to go 75. Traffic in the passing lane is going 85, and it is heavy enough that there are no large gaps. If I want to use the passing lane, somebody who is going 85 will have to slow down behind me, assuming that I don’t want to speed up to 85 and risk getting the attention of the state’s goons. So how can this be resolved? Either I or somebody going 85 is going to have his trip take longer than he would like. Should it be me, who is closer to compliance with the speed limit (I know, I know: the speed limit is stupid and unnecessary, but that’s not the issue here), or the 85 guy?
            If we are all to do as you say because you know what’s best for everybody (that is libertarian???), then those of us who are just trying to avoid getting a time-consuming lecture and a ticket from the state’s clowns are not allowed to use the passing lane in a situation like this – ever. The alternative is for those of you who want to travel at what I consider the equally-turtle-like pace of 85 to slow down to 75 for a few seconds so non-clovers like me can pass at that speed and get back in the right lane. What is so horrible or clover-like about that? Wouldn’t that be the way to make the best of the bad situation that the state has created with its stupid rules?
            I hope you guys all agree that tailgating is rude, stupid and dangerous. When you tailgate you are not a driver at all, but a helpless, pathetic passenger because you do not have your vehicle under control. In 45 years of driving, I have never seen a faster vehicle in the passing lane close on a slower vehicle that was in the process of passing and NOT tailgate. In my experience, it is the “fastest” (quotes because even 100 is not really fast for most interstates) drivers who are most likely to display sloppy habits and pig-like attitudes. It is far more likely that some mouth-breather behind me will think he needs to “teach me a lesson” by tailgating than for a slow-mover to “teach me a lesson” by blocking the passing lane. Isn’t “teaching me a lesson” the essence of cloverism?
            With all due respect, when you guys get all self-righteous, quote the state’s laws, and refuse to address a real issue, you are just as cloverish as clover is.

            • September 25, 2013 at 9:01 am

              Hi Roland,

              I think I can safely state that Clover’s view is not the same as yours (based on years of his commentary).

              He believes speed limits are morally right – ipso facto, because they are the speed limit. Put another way, he worships authority – because it is authority.

              He believes it is wrong – morally-ethically wrong – to “speed.”

              You, on the other hand, are simply defending the person who seeks to limit his exposure to unjustified/abusive authority.

              Big difference.

              So, what’s my view?

              “The law,” notwithstanding, it is dangerous to both drivers as well as surrounding traffic for a slower-moving vehicle to pull in front of a faster-moving vehicle. I understand the faster-moving vehicle may be “speeding” as a matter of law – and I sympathize with the driver of the vehicle that wishes to pull in, who may already be exceeding the speed limit himself, and simply wishes to avoid exceeding it such that he increases his chances of being hassled by a cop.

              But it’s still dangerous to pull in front of faster-moving traffic. Whether the faster-moving traffic ought to slow down is another question.

              So, should it?

              In my opinion, only if warranted by conditions – including congestion.

              Clover, on the other hand, insists on everyone “slowing down” to whatever speed he or his precious law decrees to be the “right” (synonymous in his mind, such as it is, with “legal”) speed.

          • Garysco
            September 25, 2013 at 10:08 am

            @Roland – See, you describe the problem I am having with deciphering his point(s). You “assume” poor clover is “thinking” some not stated but posted speed number. You “assume” I am advocating exceeding that posted number if I feel like going light speed.. Re-read my posts, you will not find any statement like that, and I am not yet psychic. My post stands – if there is a multi-lane road, move your slow ass to the right and let faster traffic pass.

            Unless there is a red light on you roof, you and I are not the arbitrator of what we think someone else’s speed should be. Simple as that. If I am driving reckless fast, your doing a blocking/ slowing maneuver actually increases the probability of a collision (IMHO), or at least you are initiating potential road-rage, which tends to escalate quickly into serious stuff. So just move over to the right anyway. Real simple to me. clover asked to be shown a “law, one law” as he put it originally. Well, I did for him.

            As to posted speeds. Those are determined by traffic engineers taking into account all times of day and night, all road conditions (wet, dry, hot,cold), and an average driver and average vehicle. Even here in CommieFornia there is a “basic speed law” that states I can go 55 on secondary rods posted below 55 if I can show that it was safe for conditions to do.

          • Roland
            September 25, 2013 at 11:30 am

            Greetings Eric! Thanks for the kind reply.
            I will defer to you when it comes to understanding clover’s thought (?) process.
            You wrote, “Whether the faster-moving traffic ought to slow down is another question. So, should it?”
            Keep in mind that I am not saying that in the situation I described it is acceptable or smart to dart into the passing lane when the gap between vehicles there would cause a closing driver to have to brake to avoid a collision. If what I call the “endless parade of tailgating morons” is spaced that closely, then I certainly wouldn’t recommend trying to butt in. Just stay where you are and relax.
            Actually, I suppose you did address this with your “if warranted by conditions” qualifier. What I am talking about is when there is a sufficient gap to allow the approaching driver to slow – and follow me at a safe distance while I complete my pass – simply by modulating the throttle (a skill that nobody seems to have nowadays).
            So my answer to your question is yes. If one answers no, then he is accepting the notion that in the situation described, non-clovers like me may never use the passing lane that we’ve been forced to pay for – ever – even when we are doing our best not to impede drivers who choose to go faster. That means that in anything but the lightest of rural interstate traffic, skilled, well-meaning drivers like me are to be sentenced to a lifetime of sitting behind right-lane traffic no matter how slow it is moving.
            Again, this strikes me as cloverish, if I understand the term at all. “Rules are rules and the rules say stay the hell out of my way and don’t make me slow down – ever!” What really irks me is that this is typically coming from a pathetic amateur who practically parks when he comes to the gentlest curvature of the road, and couldn’t heel-and-toe his way out of a wet paper bag.
            My suggestion is to do what I do when I approach a slower driver, and it happens every day on the curvy rural roads here: Relax, slow down, follow at a safe and courteous distance, treat the person in front of you the way you would want to be treated, and lose the ugly, un-libertarian, self-righteous attitude. Recognize that the state’s rules bring out the worst in people, but it’s up to us to apply the non-aggression principle to make the best of it. Whether driving a Cat-powered Freightliner or a Ford Focus, I have followed this practice for 45 years, and I am convinced that we’ll never have peaceful cooperation on the state’s crappy roads without it.

            • September 25, 2013 at 1:18 pm

              You bet, Roland!

              You wrote:

              “My suggestion is to do what I do when I approach a slower driver, and it happens every day on the curvy rural roads here: Relax, slow down, follow at a safe and courteous distance, treat the person in front of you the way you would want to be treated, and lose the ugly, un-libertarian, self-righteous attitude.”

              Which is pretty much what I do – until I can pass them. Which I will do at the first opportunity – legal passing zone or not, provided I have adequate sight distance and time enough to make it safely. Now, if the guy ahead tries to thwart my passing by speeding up, all bets are off. At that point, I know I am dealing with a Clover!

              One more caveat:

              If I am driving along as you describe above and a car rolls up behind me, clearly wanting to go faster than I am going (yes, this happens; as when I am driving my old truck with the bed full of building supplies or some such) I will make an effort to let the driver behind get by – as by momentarily pulling off onto the shoulder and waving him by. This is something a Clover will never do.

          • Roland
            September 25, 2013 at 11:46 am

            Garysco, I certainly don’t pretend to read clover’s mind – or yours – and I apologize if I gave that impression. But your suggestion to “move your slow ass over” (btw, if you’re going 90 on a typical wide, flat, straight interstate, your ass is slow too, just slightly less so) does not address the specific situation I described, and that I thought clover was talking about.
            I tried again in reply to Eric. I’m interested in your further thoughts if you have time to read that admittedly-too-long post.

          • Garysco
            September 25, 2013 at 11:52 am

            @Roland – If the tailgating is what he is getting at. Well that is a problem without a solution isn’t it. There are clovers out there no matter what. No law made or to be made can fix that. My thinking is not to have a rolling argument just because I think I am more right then the other guy. just do my best to get out of the fools way and avoid a collision.

          • Roland
            September 25, 2013 at 12:14 pm

            @Garysco: No solution to the tailgating problem? Really? Of course there is a solution: Don’t do it, and educate people around you not to do it, both by your words and your own actions. Any child who can count to three can be taught to follow another vehicle at a proper distance.
            A number of years ago there was a 98-car pileup on an interstate not far from here, in perfect weather conditions. Pitiful. If I ever ran into the back of a vehicle that I had been following I would crawl into a corner and never show my face on the road again. I have been “solving” the tailgating problem for 45 years, in road tractors and passenger cars, on narrow country roads and LA freeways, in all kinds of conditions. It is a no-brainer. Anybody can do it if they choose to.
            You can tell a lot about a driver’s skill by listening to what he complains about. Amateurs constantly gripe about what happens in front of them, despite the fact that they can easily control their distance from the troublemaker to make sure they come out of the situation with their bodies – if not their pride – intact. Professionals complain about what happens behind us. Over that we have no control. Our fate – and that of our families at times – is in the hands of hateful idiots who are such wimps that they can control neither their tempers nor their vehicles.

          • Garysco
            September 25, 2013 at 12:43 pm

            #Roland – Exactly, 98 clovers going in 1 direction. Most any drivers license test has a question or two in that “tailgating” area, and I am sure every conscious human driver is aware there is a law prohibiting doing it. Problem without a solution. I would be curious as to what the primary cause of the initial crash was. Did someone cut someone off, did someone pull into a faster cars path, was it a tailgater, road-rage? Common sense, not the law, is the cure. If anyone has a fix for that I have missed it.

          • Roland
            September 25, 2013 at 1:48 pm

            Sorry G, I wish I could remember what started the mess but I can’t. Don’t get me wrong: I don’t claim to be perfect. I’ll be driving to our daughter’s college tennis match this afternoon, and who knows, I could make a mistake and cause my first wreck since I hit a cow in a snowstorm at age 17. But whatever caused the initial incident, there is no excuse for at least 95 of those clowns.
            As far as common sense is concerned, I’m sure that sloppy drivers teach their kids every day that getting right on a slow driver’s tail is common sense. Be a man and close that space up, son! Hey, if you leave too much, somebody will get in front of you. Horrors, you’ve been dissed! The world ends!
            These people are so childish and stupid they seem to think that if they just get close enough, the vehicle in front of them will magically disappear – poof! – and they can continue unimpeded. Never mind that the “slow” guy has 40 cars and trucks in front of him that he can’t do anything about. He’s the enemy! Teach him a lesson! It’s just common sense!
            My favorite saying about this is, “If common sense were so common, then everybody would have it.” As I write this the weatherman on the noon news is babbling about how all of our weather problems are being caused by climate change. I’m sure he thinks it’s “just common sense.” :)

          • Roland
            September 25, 2013 at 2:04 pm

            Eric, you make way too much sense. What are you doing in the USA? :)
            As far as passing carefully in a no-passing zone is concerned, I have to say you’ve been an inspiration. I now roll through stop signs, eschew turn signals, and generally disobey dumb traffic laws every chance I get if I know I won’t be caught, and I do it even when my 19-year-old daughter is in the car. Love to see her roll her eyes when I go into another rant about the useless cops!

            • September 25, 2013 at 4:45 pm

              Thanks, Roland – it’s a “disease” I’m trying to spread!

              Among family/friends in my area, for instance, I can point out to them stretches of road that for years were legal passing zones, then (recently) painted over double yellow. No appreciable increase in traffic and no reasonable reason to prohibit passing, assuming there is adequate time/sight distance. People did so for years – so why should they be penalized now for doing the same thing? It’s very hard to argue against this.

              The 55 MPH limit is another example. In some ways, it helped us tremendously in that it was such an egregious/obvious example of punishing people for absolutely no legitimate reason. A stretch of highway that had been posted 70 one day goes to 55 the day after the NMSL is passed. Did driving 70 rather than 55 suddenly/magically become “unsafe” by dint of a politician’s pen? And if so, then how is they could allow people to drive at that unsafe speed (70) for years? Then, fast forward – and the NMSL is repealed in ’94. Now, all of a sudden, it’s “safe” to drive 70 (75, 80?) again? Because a politician signed a law?

              Anything that can be done to logically/factually de-legitimize these noisome laws is well worth doing – sometimes, by example!

          • DownshiftFast5to1
            September 25, 2013 at 8:41 pm

            Wow, Roland, you speak cloverese?
            All I said was, I agreed with Garysco, I couldn’t understand wHAt the hell clover was trying to say in that last paragraph.

            It – made – absolutely – no – sense.

            How you found meaning in that paragraph of clover’s, I don’t know.

            And to say, “Clover’s question deserves an answer.”

            Ha. That’s funny.
            That person doesn’t deserve an answer for anything. It’s a two=way street and clover only goes one-way when it comes to questions.
            There’s nothing cloverish or anti-libertarian in anything I’ve written and I’m baffled how you came up with such an idea.

            The biggest unfounded leap you make is to say that people here, “refuse to address a real issue,”
            That’s simply Not true. Again, I don’t see how you can write such a thing.

            Ya, it appears that you do not fully understand what the term ‘clover’ means.

            Also, there’s Nothing wrong with having a self-righteous attitude. There’s nothing un-libertarian or ugly about it either, in fact it’s just the opposite. Do you even know what the phrase means?

            : having or showing a strong belief that your own actions, opinions, etc., are right and other people’s are wrong.

            The statist Fascists control freak clovers of the world are wrong!
            It’s a lovely thing to see people say that and express it.
            It’s so Very libertarian.

          • clover
            September 25, 2013 at 9:39 pm

            CloverRoland I do not pretend to say I read the entire discussion that seemed to go on and on with the others but you stated exactly what I meant. You are right in that the Eric’s as I would call them would call you a clover if you got in the left lane not traveling 85 mph in our example. we would have videos of you blocking Eric from driving is 20 or more mph faster than the limit. In other words, Eric has more rights to the road than you do! He is a libertarian. Get the hell out of his way!

            • September 26, 2013 at 5:33 am

              Poor ol’ Clover!

              Can’t read – and can’t write too good, neither.

          • September 25, 2013 at 10:03 pm

            Dear DS,

            Here’s a hypothetical for you.

            Paid troll one gets his ass handed to him at some anarchist (shudder) website he is hired to troll.

            Strategy conference. What to do? What to do?

            “How about we assign paid troll two to the project and form a tag team? He can pose as a disinterested, neutral third party, and run interference for paid troll one?”

            “Great idea! Do it!”

            Well, it had to happen sooner or later, right?

          • DownshiftFast5to1
            September 25, 2013 at 10:16 pm

            Funny thing, Bevin. That’s exactly what I was thinking.

            Odd how clover popped up right when he/she/it did so soon after being mentioned as a “scofflaw.”

            I half wanted to say troll #2 was a LINO, but somehow, it didn’t fit.

            Lots of things seem out of place with those two.

          • September 25, 2013 at 10:33 pm

            Dear DS,

            I was pretty sure I was not the only one for whom alarm bells went off and red flags went up. I’m pretty sure many here in addition to you and I are saying to themselves “Something doesn’t quite smell right.”

            Of course I would be the first to admit I don’t have proof.

            But then again, I am not asserting a governmental “right” to impose punishments in a court of law, am I?

            I am merely asserting my right to form opinions, have suspicions, and increase vigilance.

          • DownshiftFast5to1
            September 25, 2013 at 10:58 pm

            Yep.

          • Garysco
            September 26, 2013 at 6:56 am

            As Foghorn-Leghorn said “I say proof, proof that is, that the public education system is a failure!”

          • Roland
            September 26, 2013 at 9:04 am

            Hi Downshift. This is in response to your post asking if I speak cloverese. Sorry, it gets a little confusing when there have been so many replies to replies that the structure of the thread no longer offers the button to “Reply” to one specific post.
            My daughter is the only American on her college tennis team, so maybe I’m getting used to interpreting strange tongues. :)
            I think I described pretty clearly the issue that I said hadn’t been addressed. Eric understood what I meant right away, and responded with another question, which I then answered. I won’t repeat all of that here; it should be easy to find by scrolling up.
            The non-aggression principle is the essence of libertarianism, and the key to peaceful interaction among us imperfect humans. As far as the issue I tried to clarify is concerned, the problem for me is tailgating. When a pathetic dumbass – who as I said before probably couldn’t heel-and-toe his way out of a wet paper bag – sits a couple of feet from my rear bumper at 75 mph, he is threatening to kill my family and me. If you understand libertarianism, then you understand that if an act is wrong, then threatening that act is also wrong. As I alluded to in one of my comments, people who bitch incessantly about things that happen in front of them typically display the least amount of libertarian “live and let live” attitude in their driving. If you say you are not a tailgater, then I’ll take your word for it and commend you. But my experience has been that people who complain about left-lane bandits are always tailgaters. Always. Eric apparently is the first exception, and you would be the second.
            I now see that while I was watching my daughter win her matches last evening, some here were accusing me of being a clover-caliber scribbler or a troll or a speed-hater or a fake libertarian. For them a few questions:
            What has Eric written in his replies to me? Here’s one in which he made a distinction between clover and me: “You, on the other hand, are simply defending the person who seeks to limit his exposure to unjustified/abusive authority. Big difference.” Do you think you know more about cloverism than the man who invented the term?
            How many of your comments or articles have been published by Lew Rockwell?
            How many laps have you done at Road America? Mid-Ohio? Road Atlanta?
            What were you doing when I was running Freightliners all over the country – getting the loads there on time through rain and snow and ice without threatening harm to anyone – 40 years ago?
            How many years have you spent as an editor at a major metropolitan newspaper? Do you even know that “its,” when used as a possessive, doesn’t have an apostrophe?
            Do you have anything the least bit intellectually stimulating to say in response to my initial post, farther down in this thread, about how libertarian/free-market innovation can eliminate these conflicts among people on the roads? Do you understand that they are caused, deep down, by our enemy, the state?

          • Eightsouthman
            September 26, 2013 at 10:23 am

            Roland, I agree being courteous is the way to go. I would also say I haven’t always driven that way and I’d bet there’s been a time in your life when you haven’t either. Yes, it was the state’s fault, but other drivers didn’t have to use arbitrary rules to affect the pay I brought home and 55mph damn near starved us. Truckers are the best game in town enforcement wise and we all know it. I recall people purposely blocking to enforce their stupid statist values on everyone else. I have tailgated those people till they let me by. It’s not good to let frustration build to that level but past “rules of the road” were conducive to it and contributed to countless accidents or just directly caused them. I’m glad I no longer have to drive on roads with plain stupid speed limits and feel sorry for those who do. And yes, it is alost always the fault of the state….and then there are those people.

          • Roland
            September 26, 2013 at 11:03 am

            Eightsouthman, yes, you are correct: I have acted that way. But I can recall only one time, and that was when I was a college student with the ink on my license still wet.
            I was fortunate to have some great teachers in the trucking industry. One of them told me a story about how an approaching drunk made a dumb decision one night to try to pass, and was heading straight for his truck. The conditions were such that my mentor said he could have slowed significantly and maybe even moved to the shoulder to make room for the guy, but he was tired and in a hurry and knew he had the “right of way” (how I hate that stupid statist term). He hit the car head-on. He had to be cut out of his truck, but was not seriously hurt. The drunk in the car, of course, was turned into hamburger. He said he will be haunted for the rest of his life knowing that if he hadn’t been so pig-headed, and enamored of the fact that according to the rules he was right, that guy might still be alive.
            Lesson learned: Do whatever it takes to avoid hitting stuff, no matter how wrong you think somebody else might be.

          • Eightsouthman
            September 26, 2013 at 1:23 pm

            Roland, one thing I never considered was hitting anyone if I could avoid it in any way except to roll a truck. If you roll a truck and survive(not likely) the next company you apply to will most likely invoke the “he’s rolled one” rule and not hire you, not because you’re incompetent but because of the mental thing you’ll always have. I’ve know a couple guys who have rolled one and got back up on that horse but never did a lot, never had their heart in it again. I can understand it.

          • DownshiftFast5to1
            September 27, 2013 at 12:07 am

            Ha. Roland, I could give a crap less about a misplaced apostrophe.
            Your comment below about libertarian solutions to the problems of the roads seems sound.
            Which is why I’m baffled by your many other unfounded leaps and conclusions.
            Not too mention your way of responding by misleading in a whole nother direction(s).
            In your long reply to me not once did you actually address an issue I brought up.
            Neither did your questions.
            It was like reading a comment from a super advanced version of clover.

            If I’m wrong, just forget about it. No big deal.

            One thing is for sure with me, I’m not fond of tailgaters, but I sure as heck don’t see them in my rear-view mirror as “threatening to kill my family and me.” That’s a bit more than a stretch, imho.

        • September 25, 2013 at 9:18 pm

          Dear clover,

          What part of this don’t you understand?

          “Notwithstanding the prima facie speed limits, any vehicle proceeding upon a highway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time shall be driven in the right-hand lane for traffic… ”

          You cite “The Law” as the last word. But when it goes against you, you have no trouble being what you denounce, a “scofflaw.”

          • clover
            September 26, 2013 at 8:00 pm

            CloverNice one Bevin. Tell me this, if there are a large number of people driving 65 mph in my example and you want to drive 75 mph are you required to stay in the right lane because a number of people want to drive 85 mph? With all the hundreds of car cameras out there they never seem to catch people driving slower in the left lane than the rest of the traffic. I guess your interpretation of laws sucks!

          • Eightsouthman
            September 26, 2013 at 10:58 pm

            clover, WTF do you not understand? In many states with signs to promote safe driving, the signs state Slower Traffic Keep Right. They don’t say slower traffic than the speed limit or slower traffic than X mph. As I said before, I commonly drive 90-100mph but if someone is coming up behind me I make sure I’m not in the left lane passing when they’re going to be passing me, or in your case, wanting to pass. Slower means just that, slower. Countless times driving 100 mph I see cars coming up behind me. So do I move over? Hell no, I want to race….but alas, the car often won’t go into Race….so I just pull into the outside lane(sigh).

          • September 26, 2013 at 11:15 pm

            Dear clover,

            It’s called the “passing lane” for a reason. It’s a lane for passing. If you’re not in the process of passing someone else, you shouldn’t be in it.

            If someone who is driving even faster than you comes up behind you and is trying to pass you, the same rule, the original rule, applies. The one attempting to pass has priority.

            It’s not the “I can squat here indefinitely if I’m exceeding what I consider a reasonable speed lane.”

            It’s not the “Since I’m already over the speed limit by x mph, therefore I can squat here indefinitely lane.”

            Got it?

            That’s what the state law chart uploaded a while back made crystal clear. But I forget, you shined that on didn’t you? You simply ignored it and asserted it was irrelevant.

          • Garysco
            September 26, 2013 at 11:17 pm
          • BrentP
            September 26, 2013 at 11:24 pm

            Tell me this, if there are a large number of people driving 65 mph in my example and you want to drive 75 mph are you required to stay in the right lane because a number of people want to drive 85 mph?

            You’re required to keep right except to pass. That’s what works. That is what is safe. In Germany limited access highways are shared by 200mph Porsches and 60mph (on a good day, down hill, with a tail wind) 2CVs.

            But in cloveristic parts of the world, a good fast driver simply keeps right and on occasion moves left to pass. None of the clovers want to be in the ‘slow lane’, so it’s usually clear. Like everything else clovers touch, things become bassackwards. The only time a clover moves right is when he sees someone passing and he moves right to block.

          • clover
            September 27, 2013 at 4:36 pm

            OK we will take your examples. A heavy number of vehicles are driving in the right lane at let us say between 65 mph and 70 mph. You like to drive 95 mph. You are passing cars just the same as you would be if you were driving 75 mph except passing faster. Some cars come up behind you. I guess you figure the cars behind you want to go faster so you have to pull behind the 65 mph car. You just slowed down by 30 mph! Not in my lifetime!Clover

            Instead of driving 65 mph you decide to drive 125 mph so you are pulling away from other cars so you are sure you are not slowing anyone. We then find you in jail that night. Good luck with that one!

            In Brent’s example of the 200 mph car in Germany driving with other cars is pretty stupid. In heavier traffic like I am talking about and like we normally see on our roadways, you would never see a car driving 200 mph in Germany with such heavy traffic or he would be in jail for reckless driving or dead. You can talk all you want about fast driving in Germany but on a normal day it is impossible to drive your 150 to 200 mph. They say the only time they drive really fast in Germany is very early Sunday morning.

            I talked to a coworker about why they want to drive over the speed limit. They say it is not to save time, it is for the excitement. There are far better ways to get excitement and not endanger others. I race skiing. It is more excitement than your driving 180 mph down the road. It also endangers no others because the course is blocked off. It is a true Libertarian type sport because you are not endangering others. Isn’t that what libertarians are all about? Do what you want but you do not endanger or interfere with others!

    • Tomas
      September 22, 2013 at 10:50 am

      It’s called common courtesy clover boy. Bonus point if you recognize that passing on the right is dangerous. This is caused by you, or one of your brethren, or just the typical clueless moron texting (yes, texting) whilst cruising slower than the flow of traffic in the left lane. Yes, those of us paying attention and able to operate a motor vehicle at above the decreed speed limit (not actual, as the real traffic flow moves along ~10mph faster on average) do want to pass you, preferably on the left. But, if you insist on driving in the passing lane, we will pass on the right as who knows how long we will have to wait until you pull your head out of your ass and move to the right. This trait is, unfortunately, uniquely American. Probably has something to do with a tendency for your ilk to think this: “I’m going the lawfully posted speed limit, (or worse, slower) you can just stay back there speeder”. Never for a moment considering that what you are doing is selfish and dangerous. In Europe, every single country I drove in adhered to the “drive right” philosophy. Germany was a joy to drive in, even as they reduced the number of speed limit free autobahn a due to traffic congestion. That said, a few German drivers drove stupidly, aggressively, road rage style. I witnessed this more than a few times. But, they absolutely never just cruised in the left lane ignoring faster traffic. I was driving to Pisa one time in my jetta, late at night, I checked mirror and I see headlights way back, but bouncing a bit, like you see in cars moving at a fast clip. All of a minute later, this Ferrari whizzes by at what had to be 180mph( i was doing about 100mph). Clover would have been dead, as would said Ferrari pilot, since clover would just keep,his ass in the left lane, because he’s driving the speed limit (in this case, 130kph).

      Love the photo at the beginning, just saw a suburban with a windshield sticker that said (backwards) slower traffic keep right.

      We don’t video this stupid stuff we see on the highways because we are driving.

      • BrentP
        September 24, 2013 at 11:59 am

        Clover only opposes passing on the right because passing on the right makes it more difficult for him and his ilk to impede traffic. Clover would prefer to camp out in the left most lane and thus control traffic by prohibiting passing to the right of Clover.

        • Eightsouthman
          September 24, 2013 at 1:19 pm

          Brent, in the 80’s this clover developed that would split lanes, drive 55 and announce on the CB you were not to pass him as he was traveling at the speed limit. I even saw two of them together on more than one occasion. They may have been THE most insane acts I’ve witnessed. The state of Tx finally crucified some of these people since they caused huge traffic jams and wrecks as you can well imagine, with some even ending up in shootings. Those are truly bent minds.

          • clover
            September 27, 2013 at 8:07 pm

            CloverEightsouthman you forget one thing. In the 80s when two vehicles usually semis drove side by side at the speed limit those were often your fellow libertarians who were protesting. Do you call your fellow libertarians who exercise their right to protest, do you call them clovers for exercising their rights?CloverClover

          • Eightsouthman
            September 27, 2013 at 8:34 pm

            clover, you must be right. I seem to not have forgotten just one thing but several….my bad.

      • clover
        September 27, 2013 at 7:39 pm

        CloverThank you very much Tomas! The only problem is that your libertarian friends would have none of your common courtesy! An example of that is the huge complaints about a truck pulling out of a business hundreds of feet in front of a slowing and turning car. Your fellow libertarians had a cow because it made the two cars behind the truck slow down a second or two before they turned. They wanted the truck to be delayed for minutes if not hours so he would never delay anyone else by a second. Is that your idea of courtesy that you want others to be delayed by thousands of times your savings in time? No you are wrong! Your libertarian idea of courtesy is to make other be delayed so you never are!Clover

        • Eightsouthman
          September 27, 2013 at 8:15 pm

          That’s the most inane bs I ever heard. Builds strawmen that meets her requirements for making what the hell ever argument she’s making. I caught another couple people to read this post….several times each….and nobody could figure out where clover’s mind must be. My wife read this and the next post and asked Is she crazy? This makes no sense. D’oh

    • 3DShooter
      September 22, 2013 at 9:54 pm

      Clover

      State of Idaho – delay and obstruct. Any vehicle that is delaying and obstructing three or more vehicles is to yield the right of way. Look it up. Though I’ve never seen it enforced and I’m in my mid 50’s.

      • clover
        September 27, 2013 at 10:25 pm

        Clover3DShooter would you know why they were not ticketed? It is pretty hard to say someone is delaying and obstructing three or more vehicles if he himself is doing well over the speed limit. Is it against the law to obstruct someone from breaking another law?

        • eric
          September 28, 2013 at 8:02 pm

          Clover, just for you, I passed three of your kind on the way to Chipotle this afternoon.

          All over the double yellow.

          One of your friends honked his horn at me, like an angry old goose…

    • Merkel12
      September 24, 2013 at 10:30 am

      You waste your breath. Peter’s is permanently 15.

      • BrentP
        September 24, 2013 at 11:58 am

        Peter.s is permanently 15.

        I have always found it baffling that maturity is often equated with obeying every edict of government and our corporate masters. Equated with not thinking for ourselves, but simply obeying like a good obedient child would.

      • September 24, 2013 at 12:37 pm

        Excellent grammar and construction, first of all.

        But, please: How is it that “maturity” is synonymous with obedience? With meekly doing as ordered by whomever controls the apparatus of organized violence (i.e., the government)?

        I await your reply… .

        • September 27, 2013 at 9:15 pm

          Dear Eric,

          Re: the 12 in “Merkel12″

          Whaddya think?

          The 12 apostles? His mental age? Or 12 years of indoctrination in the publik skools?

      • Boothe
        September 24, 2013 at 1:12 pm

        So Merkel12, is English your second language or did you attend one of the Common Core of Learning pilot schools?

    • Bill Fargo
      September 24, 2013 at 3:36 pm

      Since you are apparently oblivious to the simple fact that all speed limits are what the liaryers and shirted masturbators call prima facie, why would we expect you to understand why none of those things are written in black letter law?

  35. Tor Minotaur
    September 20, 2013 at 9:39 pm

    This Guy had the Worst Day

    Help! Call another Amberlamps for da Amberlamps

    Central Florida Student Attends Intro to Swinology Class

    • geoih
      September 23, 2013 at 8:02 am

      The amazing thing is you will probably not find a cop in the world that thinks that cop did anything wrong, and that is what is wrong with the world.

    • September 23, 2013 at 8:48 am

      Dear Eric,

      This is where “limited government” eventually leads, to tyranny.

      What’s important to note is that we did not lose our rights “somewhere along the way.”

      We lost them the very moment we conceded that someone else has “authority” over us. We lost them at the very outset.

      That is why governments as conventionally defined, must NEVER be allowed to take shape and gain power.

      They must be abolished, TOTALLY. Not a single vestige of it must remain.

      Otherwise, over time, it will lead to this all over again.

      • September 23, 2013 at 8:49 am

        * Sorry.

        Dear Tor.

        Scrolled up and missed your name, saw Eric’s.

        • Tor Minotaur
          September 28, 2013 at 6:24 am

          Hey Bevin, I can no longer access any articles or comments of the six days of content from 2013/09/21 directory through 2013/09/26 directory thanks to Evil Dead 2, whoever he is.
          http://snag.gy/FfAVd.jpg
          http://snag.gy/vtYnK.jpg
          He’s some kind of wordpress security clover who’s taken an interest in the security of my PHP-Hypertext-Preprocessor?

          Pirate Party Drones Angela Merkel
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6EEsP93AZ4

          • Mike in Spotsy
            September 28, 2013 at 9:16 am

            Looks like this site has been hacked. I can’t log on…it says Mike in Spotsy is an invalid user name and all of Eric’s articles have Evil 2 Dead as the author.

            • eric
              September 28, 2013 at 7:59 pm

              Hi Mike,

              We’ve (Dom has) patched up the site; still have issues – but we’re functional again.

              Thanks, everyone, for bearing with us!

          • September 28, 2013 at 10:03 am

            Dear Tor,

            I’ve seen scenes in film and TV where some site gets hacked and clicking on the homepage gets an image like that Evil Dead one, but this is the first time I’ve ever actually encountered a website I frequent fall prey.

            But like I said, the fact that they consider it worth the trouble to silence libertarian dissent, means we’re winning. If we weren’t considered a threat to their legitimacy, they wouldn’t bother. They would consider it a waste of their time and energy.

      • Bill Fargo
        September 24, 2013 at 3:33 pm

        We CAN’T lose our rights, they being innate. All the government can do is violate our rights and deny them to us.
        We the People have long since abdicated our responsibility to control our government. It is now to the point that only the minority of the “citizenry” even know what is in the Constitution, let alone understand what it meant in the late 18th century.
        “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” Thomas Jefferson

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *