Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco911
Wrong. Nice strawman argument. My argument is as follows:
1) Drive at a speed that is reasonable and prudent. Reasonable and prudent does not necessarily mean following the speed limit. When traffic is moving much faster than the speed limit, it is safer to drive at the speed of traffic flow in your lane of travel. When there is adverse road conditions, it is safer to drive slower than the speed limit.
2) Drive in a manner that minimizes one's traffic footprint by allowing faster vehicles to pass. That means do not drive next to someone for extended lengths of time, or block the fast lane unless passing.
|
what is considered reasonable and prudent on the bridge? on the main road? on a side street? your definition of reasonable and prudent is not the same as someone else's. you seem to have that problem solved by asking slower drivers to allow faster vehicles to past. but you ALSO state that when traffic is moving much faster than the speed limit, it is safer to drive at the speed of traffic flow. by this logic, the fastest driver on the road will always be the one who sets the pace and all slower drivers should follow him/her
if some idiot was going 100km down a road with a 50km speed limit, should the rest of traffic also follow at that speed because then it would be safer? or is that not considered reasonable and prudent?
in the end, the ultimate question is "what do YOU think the speed limit should be on every single road that exists?" because that is essentially what you are getting at, that whatever you feel is reasonable and prudent should also go for everyone else.
"people who drive slower than me are idiots, and people who drive faster than me are maniacs" - does that sound like you?