this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2024
95 points (95.2% liked)
Asklemmy
43905 readers
1141 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Often people use those lanes to speed. If a car ahead is overtaking at or within a reasonable range of the speed limit, but not at the speed the speeder wants to travel. The speeder must be patient, they don't get to dictate what manoeuvres are happening ahead.
The argument you present at the end isn't logical,
I can largely agree with this sentiment, but you say before,
If undercutting is the most unsafe thing for the person behind to do in the situation, then as your sentiment captures, the frustrated party undercutting are still in the wrong.
They are in the wrong because, they have failed to 'always do the safest thing' in the given situation.
Nice sentiment again, but it implicitly assigns a rigid cause and effect regime to a situation where the 'frustrated party' behind has their own agency and likely as much training. There is no necessity that they undercut, it is a choice the party behind makes. The cause does not necessitate that effect, at best it could contribute.
In essence the sentiment shifts the blame from the person causing a potential accident (the undercutter), to the person ahead who, at worst, is causing poor traffic conditions.
Like I said undertaking is bad. No excuse for doing it, except where it is legal. If someone goes under speed limit in lane 3 you can undertake I believe, though I would still be super cautious.
Obviously speeding is illegal, and I'm not suggesting anyone should support do so. But we should let the police deal with it.
Just to clarify, you don't think it is ok to sit in lane 2 or 3 at the speed limit if there is room to move over ? Not doing so is also illegal in the UK.
While the majority of people stay within the law (+/- 10%) there are enough people behaving badly on the roads that you should always take that into consideration.
This is a great example of the is/ought problem. You can try your best to make the "ought" true, but don't neglect what reality "is". On the road that means; assume there is an idiot nearby, and drive in a way that keeps you safe from their shit.
You are correct. If the flow of traffic in lane 1 or 2 is faster than the flow of traffic in lane 2 or 3 then it is okay to pass. Intentionally changing lane temporarily to pass a car on the inside is illegal.
The other poster confused your point.
If someone in lane 3 is going 69 and overtaking someone then there's no reason to pass them, and probably isn't safe or legal given there is, by definition, a car on the inside lane already.