[zamadatix]

Fast lane probably meant left/passing lane, not unrestricted roads. That you're not supposed to stay in them long is part of why people speed up to pass, otherwise it takes a minute seconds to gain 60 feet on that semi going just under.

Speaking to the US as a whole on traffic law is hard to do. E.g. in Washington it is absolutely legal to exceed the speed limit to pass someone on the highway, in California it isn't. In California it's illegal to sit in the fast lane, in Minnesota it's not. In Minnesota you can turn right on certain reds, in DC you can't.

[novagameco]

In my state, it's illegal to go over the speed limit at any point, for any reason. If you want to pass someone, you do so in the left lane, at the speed limit, and then move back over to the middle/right lane. And you best believe you'll get pulled over

[zamadatix]

In my particular state things tend to be a lot more nuanced. E.g. at the surrounding highway of a major city the typical traffic speed will be 10-15 over the posted and it's 20-25 that gets people pulled over. Go about an hour out from that city and you may be on a stretch of highway where going 5 over is a ticket. Very rarely is anywhere going e.g. 2 mph going to get you pulled over but it does happen some places. We do have turn on red though!

Regardless of where I've travelled in the US I've yet to see someone get pulled over for travelling in the passing lane (though I know it to obviously be a thing just not lucky enough to witness it). I thought for sure I was finally going to see it in Texas with this person doing 10 under in the left lane but the trooper just passed on by to their right.

[novagameco]

In my state, 20-25 over can get you arrested. Do it multiple times and you can go to jail

[zamadatix]

Well that's the funny part: it does in my state too... depending on the part you do it!

[isatty]

And what state is that? I do know that some states are over zealous about this but two vehicles driving next to each other slowing gaining on another to overtake is also creating a dangerous road situation. This is taught when you take your written test in CA. Trucks don’t really have a choice which is why it’s normal for them to do so even on a two lane highway.

[novagameco]

Virginia

> two vehicles driving next to each other slowing gaining on another to overtake is also creating a dangerous road situation

Then perhaps you shouldn't pass if it's not safe to do so. My problem with everyone in this thread and who is against speed limiters is: the subtext is that they want to go faster than the speed limit so they can arrive faster. It's simply the fact that people are willing to engage is an extremely dangerous activity multiple times a day so that they can save a few minutes a day. The idea that people should have the right to go dangerously fast because it's simply more convenient for them is a psychotic proposition to me

[lolinder]

FWIW, Virginia is infamous for strict enforcement of traffic laws—I've never even driven there but have been warned to pay extra close attention when crossing its borders.

Most US states aren't anything like Virginia. I just did a road trip across ~20 states and in none of them did people in cars (as opposed to semis) actually follow the speed limit on the highway. Most states had ~8 over as the normal speed, none were less than 5 over.

> The idea that people should have the right to go dangerously fast because it's simply more convenient

No one is saying anything about dangerously fast driving. In most US states speed limits are set with the understanding that a significant portion of drivers will drive 5 to 10 mph faster than the speed limit and not get pulled over even if a cop sees them. In those states driving at or below the speed limit is actually more dangerous because you're creating an obstruction that other drivers who are following the expected driving patterns have to adapt to.

(Again, from what I understand that doesn't apply to Virginia, which would be why your experience differs from most here.)

[zamadatix]

I think it's more the idea that the speed limit should be reasonably close to what'd be unsafe for long periods, not pressed to the absolute border between what a safe speed and a psychotic speed would be. From that perspective it makes sense that, while you'd ideally like to just go 65 the whole way without obstruction, if you have to pass it's still reasonably to go 67 and do it in a third of the time than clamp to specifically 65 out of ideological principles. If going 67 is just unfathomable from a safety perspective then the problem is probably the speed limit being 65 not what people do to pass at a reasonable rate.