[benabbott]

Might I direct you to the text on the sign, Speed "Limit"?

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?

[rcoveson]

Assigning blame doesn't do anything for safety, even if you're right. Where I live, by far the safest thing to do is to drive ~4 mph over the limit on all non-residential roads. If you drive below or even right at the limit, you will be tailgated or passed with far greater frequency. That behavior is out of your control, at least on the road. You can push for more consistent enforcement while you're not driving (I'm inclined to do so myself), but while you're behind the wheel, the only behavior you can change is your own.

[tshaddox]

> Assigning blame doesn't do anything for safety, even if you're right.

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.

[rcoveson]

No disagreement here, but where the literal rubber hits the road, you still have to decide how to act when the ambient semi-aggressive driving population continues to behave in the way that they do. Will you blamelessly be road raged at 50-100% more often than a more moderate driver (who drives at the most popular speed, though it may be over the limit) just because if an accident does happen it will be the road rager's fault?

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.

[tshaddox]

> 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.

[watwut]

Well, "People who drive below the posted speed limit (road boulders) are a menace" is not just assigning blame, but severely exaggerated angry claim. Somehow, you have choose fairly calm response to it as the thing to criticize as assigning blame.

[kurthr]

And driving in the "slow" lane where every single driver has to go past you to get on/off the road isn't generally safe either. On a 2 lane road you don't have much choice, but on a busy 3 lane road, probably not a great choice either.

[potato3732842]

If you can't understand the subtle, but still fairly obvious and unmistakeable difference between being a net increase in danger/problem potential without a) breaking the rules b) personally increasing your own financial liability for any bad outcomes you probably ought not to be driving.

There's a reason tractors get triangles and oversize stuff gets highly visible signs.

[zdragnar]

If you are driving slower than other traffic, under the speed limit, and there is not a weather condition or a road impediment, that is also illegal in most (or all?) states.

> 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.

[californical]

Just to be clear - your statements about the law are all completely untrue, except for some states having a few specific highways with a “minimum speed”. For example, a highway near me says “left lane minimum speed 45mph” - where the speed of the road is 65.

Unless you can find some laws that specify that driving below the speed limit is illegal?

[chneu]

Impeding the flow of traffic is illegal. Most states have "if x number of vehicles are behind you, you are required to use pull offs or let vehicles pass" laws.

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.

[nradov]

Many states have laws against obstructing traffic. Most of them don't mention a specific minimum speed so enforcement is largely at the discretion of law enforcement officers. Personally I would like to see strict enforcement of those laws with tickets given out to anyone who intentionally impedes the flow of traffic.

[californical]

Obstructing traffic is very different than “driving more slowly than the person behind you wants”. Obstructing means blocking, not making them wait 30 seconds for a good chance to go around.

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.

[potato3732842]

They should use the same fine schedule as speeding.

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.

[kurthr]

It's called unsafe driving and it's definitely ticketable.

[DangitBobby]

It's very smart to have laws set up so that whether you are speeding or not, you can be pulled over for a moving traffic violation! That way, the police always have a legal pretense for a traffic stop.

[zdragnar]

A very simple google search brought this up immediately:

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/346/ix/59...

Other states have something similar on the books as well.

[DangitBobby]

Your simple search doesn't back up your position. I can assure you, going ~1MPH below the speed limit does not run afoul of that law.

[zdragnar]

I never claimed that it did.

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.

[cameldrv]

Above the limit, I agree that people speeding bear primary responsibility, although if you're not going the limit in the left lane, you are creating an obstacle for sure. If you're going significantly below the limit though, what's the reason? The whole point of a car is to get you from point A to point B quickly.