People who drive below the posted speed limit (road boulders) are a menace. They increase the risk to everyone else as other drivers try to get around them.
The menace are drivers not adjusting to the realities of the road.
if I were to go even the posted speed limit during my morning commute, I would be causing a hazard. it's 5-10 over just to be safely part of the flow
same road in the evening and doing the limit or even a bit under is safe
imho, the dangerous drivers are those who for whatever reason do not base their speed on the flow of traffic around them
I'm also in Europe and here it's completely normal to drive the speed limit. The motorway speed limit in my country is 130 km/h (81 mph). I drive an EV, so I usually stay around 110 km/h (68 mph) for efficiency, which is still faster than all trucks (limited at 90 km/h (56 mph)) and quite a few passenger cars and vans. Most cars drive a bit faster than me (at or around the speed limit) and very few drive faster than the limit (mostly the usual suspects, german luxury cars or sports cars).
I honestly can't imagine being forced to break the law every day just to get to work safely.
1: https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2020/05/veil-darkness-redu...
This subthread is discussing highways with prevailing 75-80 mph traffic and some road users driving less than the posted 55 mph limit in a belief that doing so adds to road safety.
Nah dude, your intolerance is the menace here.
It is perfectly legal for me to drive in a traffic lane. It may be OK to drive on the sidewalk, with significant restrictions. But it is usually not.
I typically opt to drive in traffic: the limit is going to be around 35mph. You can perhaps predict the sort of reactions I endure from motorists when I’m hogging their precious lanes at ½ their speed. Would you believe spitting in my face?
Nevertheless, I persist carefully, because I’m right, and I drive with scrupulous safety, and I hope and pray that others follow my lead, because electric scooters at 17mph on the sidewalk is fucking dangerous to pedestrian me at all other times.
Its the speed limit. Its not the speed that everyone has to drive at in all circumstances and conditions.
The ones causing danger are the drivers attempting to pass dangerously, not the person driving slowly. Do cyclists cause danger by using roadways? Or is it the people driving multiple-ton vehicles?
There's a reason tractors get triangles and oversize stuff gets highly visible signs.
> Do cyclists cause danger by using roadways?
They are also expected to move with traffic if they are taking up a lane. This is among the reasons non-motorized vehicles are not allowed on freeways.
Anyone moving slower than expected are intrinsically an impediment and a hazard, just the same as anyone speeding or otherwise driving recklessly.
Unless you can find some laws that specify that driving below the speed limit is illegal?
It ought to be just as lucrative for a cop to nab someone who's unreasonably stopping at a merge as it is to nab someone who's going a few over.
If you are moving a large item that is fragile, are you allowed to go 35mph in a 45mph zone to reduce the risk of damaging the fragile item? Or is that illegal too? Or what if one of your passengers gets car sick easily?
In fact, there are some winding mountain roads in California where the speed limit is 55, but if you go that fast, you’re suicidal because there are no guard rails and very sharp turns. Occasionally, someone mildly suicidal will come up behind you. Is it illegal to drive 15mph in that 55 zone?
Safety is prioritized above speed, suggesting otherwise is unhinged and antisocial.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/346/ix/59...
Other states have something similar on the books as well.
Addendum: the margin of error on speed radar generally tends to be in the region of 2mph. You'll need to be a good deal slower than the speed limit before a police officer is likely to consider your driving to be an impairment.
If a cop thinks your slow driving is dangerous they can absolutely write a citation. There are a bunch of laws that allow them to do this in most states.
It's reasonable to talk about which party should be the one to change their behavior, and that's essentially the same thing as assigning blame.
It's a very frustrating social problem. Obviously we can't let ourselves be held collectively hostage by bad actors in all situations. But I would still predict that there are some situations where the bad actor population is so large and "mildly-bad" that indefinitely giving in to their implicit demands is the right game theoretic choice.
Game theory is quite a big thing, that's for sure. And it's no surprise that actors will tend towards these situations where you're tempted to think "eh, letting them do this bad thing with impunity feels like the right game theoretic choice, because it's right at the limit of not being bad enough to illicit a response." And yet, there's a reason for things like territorial behavior in the animal kingdom, where an animal will defend minor territory disputes at great personal cost even when the cost of losing a small amount of territory seems much smaller.