You know what's "explicit"? The aftermath of an automobile collision with a human body. The f-bomb doesn't even belong on the same scale.
I don't understand why humans are such ridiculous prudes about all the wrong things, while in other contexts they are blissfully murdering each other—quite literally. This is why I stay off social media. I do not understand my own species, and they frighten me.
And god forbid you suggest that cars' maximum speeds should be set to 100. People come up with all sorts of fantasy scenarios in which they might need to go 110, all of which are certainly ridiculous
My favorite one is the "hospital rush" story. I encourage you to try driving 105 on a clear freeway in the middle of the day and see how safe you feel in your kia. Protip: your tires probably aren't rated for that speed!
I've long said that anyone making that argument for having your average car be able to go up to 150 or so needs to be put in a car, forced to drive at a minimum speed of 150, and forced to do 50 or so miles on your average American highway.
If after that experience they are still alive and still wish to make that argument, then I will accept it.
But with that said, I have heard an alternate argument for it that makes more sense to me. Most cars aren't running their engines at 100% -- they shouldn't be. But the top of the RPM and speed dials, are meant to represent that 100%. So the 155mph standard upper limit on many cars' speed gauges is more to account for the fact that if you push the powertrain of the car to 100%, you will probably find yourself at somewhere near those kinds of speeds anyways, and you want to still show the driver how fast they're going, even if they're doing something nuts.
I think what the speedometer is capable of displaying, what the car is actually capable of reaching, and what the governor should be set to are 3 separate items. I wouldn't have any problem with the latter being set lower on general cars mostly because it'd be an extra "and you removed the limiter on a public road" charge when they are caught more than the hope it'd actually do anything preventative. It's not like people getting pulled over for doing 120 mph now are getting a $100 speeding ticket though and the same thing could be achieved through just making that punishment higher directly.
Also anyone buying a car that can genuinely take itself to 150 (i.e. not that the speedometer can read 150 but that the whole car, tires included, are actually rated to not fall apart when the engine tries to do so) who hasn't already taken the thing to a track is either nuts or one of those people with a car collection garage of things they never actually drive. That includes any of you model S owners... it's a blast.
> I think what the speedometer is capable of displaying, what the car is actually capable of reaching, and what the governor should be set to are 3 separate items.
I agree, but I think there was at one point more coherency between those 3 items and it made more sense to just have the speedos go up to 155 or thereabouts, because that was basically the highest speed that any reasonably consumer-accessible car would reach (so not the ones tuned up to go really fast, but maybe something like a muscle car which could on a good day maybe get close to those numbers.)
These days, you're right. No sane manufacturer is going to overprovision their cars to be able to do 2x the speed limit of their target market without an expectation that the car will be extremely niche if they do.
I once got my 1993 Buick Skylark to 100. Once the paint started chipping off the hood, I decided that maybe 100 was a speed I never needed to see again.
I think Waugh's quote is on point with why them being explicit is relevant (and it's not about the prudish takes):
> “The format that they use that in is not the greatest,” Kick said. “It is in fact more distracting than it is actually getting the message across.”
How many speedsters are going to slow down because a sign says "fuck" vs how many drivers are going to point, laugh, grab pictures with their phones, anything besides actually slow down or pay attention to the road?
Unrelated rant: I once saw a US traffic sign online that said "If drivers are passing you on your right, you're doing it wrong". I wish those signs were everywhere.
I love that verbiage, because IMO it really gets to the crux of the issue: many drivers think that if they're going the speed limit, it's OK to park out in the left lane.
The problem with that is nearly everywhere in the US the average rate of speed on highways is about 5 miles over the speed limit, so if you're doing the limit you are going to be one of the slower cars driving.
It really is about cars passing you. If you're not passing you need to move over.
People think of (and are sometimes taught) that the left lane is “the fast lane”. If they are going a couple over the limit, they think they’ve earned the right to be there.
Moreover, if they are prone to road rage, telling them to move over is seen as an insult/disrespect that they need to get out of the “big tough guy lane” and can really set them off.
> Unrelated rant: I once saw a US traffic sign online that said "If drivers are passing you on your right, you're doing it wrong".
One observation from a cop:
> “I stopped a guy one day for doing 100 [kph] [in the left lane] and there were cars passing on the right honking at him and giving him the finger,” Stratton said. “He said ‘I’m keeping people from speeding and doing your job for you.’ But he was keeping me from doing my job, which was to catch speeders and give them the ticket they deserve.”
> 147 (1) Any vehicle travelling upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at that time and place shall, where practicable, be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic or as close as practicable to the right hand curb or edge of the roadway. […]
I get that leaving the left lane clear for passing is the convention, but is it actually optimal? If everyone stuck to this, then the left lane would be rarely used and we'd be underutilizing the available space, right?
Where I live, there are signs saying "keep right except to pass" but they're neither obeyed nor enforced afaict. And it's never really bothered me tbh (I'm usually chilling in the right lane).
On the two lane sections of I-5, among other busy trucking routes, you can encounter miles long convoys of trucks in the right lane. If you religiously stick to staying to the right, you and a whole lot of other traffic will be weaving between the trucks and changing lanes every minute or so. So nobody who's going 10mph faster than the trucks does that. If you actually did that, you'll likely get boxed out trying to get back into the left lane as soon as you come up on another truck -- you'll have a brief period where you're going 75 in the right lane, then you have to slow down to 60 to deal with a truck, then you go back to overtaking at 75, then get back in the right lane... rinse and repeat. What happens instead is that the people enraged by this will use the gap on the right to go 100mph past everyone who just wants to cruise at a steady speed past all of the trucks.
Barely tangentially related, but I5 desperately needs to be widened to 3 lanes with a strict "No semi trucks in the left lane, for any reason" rule that is enforced with impounding trucks, the goods they're carrying, and loss of licensing for the drivers and the companies they work for. I'm not even against making it so that CHP, OHP...etc, are allow to use the proceeds from auctioning off the impounded trucks and goods to fund themselves.
I've wasted far too many hours of my life getting stuck behind a left-lane truck on that road, trying to overtake a column of trucks in the right lane while going up a 6% grade.
> I get that leaving the left lane clear for passing is the convention, but is it actually optimal? If everyone stuck to this, then the left lane would be rarely used and we'd be underutilizing the available space, right?
Right, it depends on traffic volume. There are situations where "keep right except to pass" obviously doesn't help - e.g. streets with regular left-hand turns and congested highways, most notably.
I got pulled over and given a warning when someone passed me to the right.
I told the officer I totally support the policy.
In my defense, I was overtaking other vehicles to the right and moving at the speed of the vehicle ahead of me, but as I was driving a large vehicle I was preserving a longer follow distance than the tailgater (err, driver) who passed me thought I needed...
Nope. And so many of these traffic laws often neglect to take actual safety into account. I’ve certainly been one of those annoyed drivers behind large vehicles taking forever to pass. Ultimately it’s the driver of that heavy vehicle to determine what is safe or not and not the impatient asshole behind them. That being said, it’s often difficult from behind to differentiate between the safety conscious and the inconsiderate who just like to park on the left.
I probably tend to be in the top 10% of drivers regarding speed on any given highway. I’m usually the passer and rarely the passee. I stick to the right lane when traffic is light, but may cruise in the left when it requires me to weave in and out for no reason. But I keep an eye on my mirrors and make sure to get out of the way for the few who are faster than me. Sometimes even if that means I slow down a bit to get right. My goal when on the highway is to not make others put on their brakes or react because of me. My second goal is to not put myself into positions where I have to brake myself. That means good follow distances so minor changes in traffic speed doesn’t cause a chain reaction of tail lights that lead to traffic snakes.
Most of what I have seen that causes dangerous situations is when people act abnormally. If the cruising speed on a highway (regardless of posted speed limit) is 80mph and you’re cruising at 70mph in the left lane you are causing a higher risk of accidents regardless of whether you’re doing the speed limit or not. If the roads are covered in ice, you should absolutely be ticketed for driving the “speed limit” when most everyone else is crawling along. So much of traffic boils down to “we live in a society” and so much of what makes traffic miserable is the same folks who can never understand that concept.
This is the law in Europe, passing on the inside is called 'undertaking' — in the UK if you get caught undertaking 4x in 3 years you lose your license!
It's a shock initially in the US but actually leads to a more relaxed kind of driving. US driving is more like going for a relaxed walk, in Europe it's more like running on a track.
Driving in Europe is like running on a track with a couple of assholes and a few normal people. Driving in the US is like running on a track with a couple of assholes and a lot of normal people.
The end result in the US is that on highways drivers will settle into social groups of normal people driving along with occasional disruptions from the assholes.
The UK has also now passed laws that criminalise hogging the middle or fast lanes on motorways (UK highways). Unfortunately it's not strongly enforced. It feels like a significant cause of congestion during peak hours.
Yeah. The Highway Code Rule 264: Keep in the left lane unless overtaking.
There are a lot of circumstances where this looks ridiculous though. Tons of cars driving on, say, M25 will cram into the leftmost lane while the other two will be empty. Then you'll deal with cars constantly joining from the left every couple miles. Then sometimes leftmost lane will leave left and the road continue as two lanes for some time. Then overtaking cars will fill the gap in front of you and you'll need to slow down to keep the following distance of two secs.
As a foreigner living in the UK for the last 3 years, I generally like how the driving rules are laid out and how people drive. But this totally misses the point.
I understand the desire to make things more logical like the German driving system. I wish we had an autobahn and autobah rules and highly trained drivers too, but this law always struck me as half-baked and frustratingly ambiguous.
Near where I live, we have multiple 3-digit interstates. That is, they are sections of interstate that defy the usual convention of odd-numbered north-south routes and east-west even-numbered routes. 3-digit interstate combine highways or circle around cities or take you to tunnels, etc. The result is lots of sections where traffic merges from the left, you have to exit from the left, or the interstate divides into two other interstates and the former left lane is now the right lane. In those very same sections, you have signs reminding you that the left lane is for passing, not cruising. The problem with this is that everyone takes the left lane as a license to go 80+ mph.
What if I my left exit is coming up in a mile? Do I "go with the flow of traffic" and risk being the rare car that gets a speed infraction that day, do I wait until the the very last few yards to get in the left and take my exit, do I get on the left and go at a speed I'm more comfortable doing within a mile of my exit(speed limit + only 15). It's all nonsense and feels arbitrarily enforced based on the whims of the state troopers that week.
Most of the time, the US drivers passing on the right in my region are speeding and driving erratically. I agree that slow drivers in the fast lane are dangerous. Driving in the slow lane like it's the fast lane isn't the solution.
In the US traffic laws are state-by-state. In most states, unlike most European countries, "undertaking" _is_ legal, but, additionally most states still have a "slower traffic must keep right" rule.
That's what the sign the parent post is referring to is trying to point out - if someone is passing you in the "slower" lane, you are not in the correct one.
Typically the leftmost lane is meant to be the passing Lane. If you're in the left lane and getting passed on the right that means you should have moved to the right...
> If you're in the left lane and getting passed on the right that means you should have moved to the right...
Not always.
I'm often in the passing lane (passing a semi, for example) and someone else zooms up behind me and expects me to accelerate to their speed.
They get annoyed that I'm not passing fast enough, so they either ride on my bumper or they fall back and scoot 2-lanes to the right and then speed up to pass everyone (the semi and me).
To be clear: after I pass the semi (or whatever) in the center lane, I will move to the right, but I'm not going to speed up to the point where I consider it dangerous just to please the speed demon behind me.
Or the worst of highway inventions: "exit left in 1 mile".
There's almost an entirely separate ruleset for urban highways vs rural highways. Rural highways it's dead simple... stay right except while actively passing. Only 2 lanes to be in and not really many corner cases.
Urban highways still have the same general "stay to the right" but suddenly there are a lot of exceptions "except when passing, except when exiting left or taking the left fork soon, except when trying to get to a spot where you can even start to pass the block of semis in the right 2/3 lanes, except when you are trying to get out of the lane that force-exits in 1 mile". Inevitably someone will be going fast enough to be mad you spent 5 seconds in a lane that wasn't the rightmost open one but, unlike rural highways, it doesn't always mean you were actually in the wrong lane.
The correct thing to do is to turn on your turn signal and wait for a safe opportunity to move to the right.
But in most circumstances, if you’re trying to find an opening to move right, that’s still an indication that you’ve been hanging out in the left lane for an inappropriate amount of time and/or misusing the lane.
In my state you can get pulled over for holding a cell-phone during driving. It looks like Colorado (the state in the article) is starting to enforce this in 2025. [1]
The new law isn't apt to be enforced as often as many might like. Emphasis added:
>How is this law enforced?
>In Colorado, mobile electronic devices, like cell phones, are not allowed while driving a vehicle without a hands-free accessory. Colorado’s hands-free law is a secondary offense, which means drivers will be pulled over for this law only if an officer witnesses an individual drive in a careless or imprudent manner while holding a device in their hands or pinning it to their ears. Some examples are a driver holding a cell phone to their ear while driving through a construction zone or a driver holding a phone in their hand and looking at it while traveling 75 mph on a highway.
CDOT also encourages people to use more than 6 neurons while driving by posting "CAMP IN THE MOUNTAINS NOT THE LEFT LANE" on most interstates. Driving in CO is a _nightmare_.
Semi-related rant: Boulder's 20mph residential speed limit is so annoying. I have a stick, and it likes to be in 3rd gear at 25mph. At 20mph, it's reving high in 2nd and annoys the hell out of me. The same is mostly true for my automatic, but slightly less.
Like, I can get behind the law change for safety reasons, but all the signs say it's for emission reasons. And I can tell you that my gas usage is higher at 20pmh than at 25mph. Sure, yeah, there's some study out there that ... blah blah blah.
Look, Boulder City Council is just crazy with their roads, I hate it.
Because residential streets have people and kids on them. Lower speeds greatly increase the odds of survival in car collisions with pedestrians. Plus it just makes everything feel calmer and safer, especially for cyclists and pedestrians. Who doesn’t want more walkable neighborhoods? If you’ve ever lived anywhere with sane residential speed limits, this would be a no brainer.
And being able to go 25mph vs 20mph saves very little time on residential streets - you’re not traveling 10s of
miles on them on any given trip. If you’re going 5 miles for example, that’s 12 vs 15 minutes, assuming you’re going exactly that speed the whole time, which you’re not, because there are stop signs and roundabouts everywhere. So it becomes pretty negligible.
The last paragraph of the article seems out of place:
State transportation officials are also struggling with fake license plates. The company that operates automated enforcement cameras on a growing number of Colorado’s toll lanes has recorded dozens of false license plates with words like “T1RESLYR” on them.
What does this have to do with the fake signs? And what "word" is "T1RESLYR"? My best guess would be it's supposed to be read as "tire slayer", but I'm not sure why this is the chosen example. Is this an AI generated article, or just sloppy?
The more common a swear word is the more likely it has been semantically bleached to the point assumptions like this seem (ironically) nonsensical. Few people saying "you bastard" actually give a damn whether one is born of wedlock or not these days (many not even realizing that's what it ever meant in the first place) they just know and use it as "a general swear word you can shout in frustration". Same for bitch, it's certainly possible to use it in the original context and it is still done but it's most often used in a way equally interchangeable with how one would typically use "bastard".
Common swear words like bitch become so semantically bleached context is needed to even decide if it's being used in a negative way at all, let alone with a gendered intent. E.g. "that's bitching" -> is something awesome or not? Is something "shit" or "the shit"? Is it "fucking amazing!" or "fucking 'amazing'"?
I think that if you simply call someone bitch in place of a name, it has become largely but not entirely degendered, but if you call someone "a bitch" it is still pretty gendered.
I don't understand why humans are such ridiculous prudes about all the wrong things, while in other contexts they are blissfully murdering each other—quite literally. This is why I stay off social media. I do not understand my own species, and they frighten me.