Automatic braking with nothing in front of me.

[danielspivey]

If you are driving on the highway in the left lane (i.e. the fast lane) and you are driving slower than the posted speed limit and I have to pass you on the right, you are a DORK, and I, my wife, my kids and anyone else in my car is making fun of you and the mama that raised you. GTFO OF THE LEFT LANE!

If you see a car coming up fast behind you, move the hell over.

Obviously, conditions apply. Heavy/rush hour traffic, bad weather, etc. But long miles on the interstate? GET OUT THE WAY! You are not only being annoying, you're being unsafe. Impeding traffic is a ticketable offense and it's wild that some here don't understand that.

Put me in the category that wants as little techno-nanny interference as possible. Advanced safety group was a deal-breaker for me and caused me to pass on a lot of local offers. Ended up finding a punk'n Rubicorn* 200 miles away that had everything I wanted, and two things I didn't-- body color flares and the safety group (basic, not advanced). Both features have grown on me- I don't mind it beeping when there's cross-traffic and it's saved me from embarassment a few times in busy parking lots, if not an actual accident. But activating the brakes without my expressly putting my boot down on the actual f#%*ing brake pedal?! That's a big hell no for me and I'm glad I don't have it. The ACC is not enough of a convenience for me to want that crap jamming up on me over a damn shadow or a long line on an adjacent exit pass. That nanny can take her umbrella and fly.

*intentional misspelling ?

Tailgating road rager? I feel the anger coming threw my iPhone screen. Jeez. Despite what you believe, impeding traffic laws are not made to allow regular citizens to break the law and drive over the speed limit. They are made to make people get out the way for service vehicles or those going under a “minimum speed limit”.

Sponsored

 

[Weasel Caesar]

Tailgating road rager? I feel the anger coming threw my iPhone screen. Jeez. Despite what you believe, impeding traffic laws are not made to allow regular citizens to break the law and drive over the speed limit. They are made to make people get out the way for service vehicles or those going under a “minimum speed limit”.

Actually, no. Comedy is more satisying than rage- but the jokes are definitely on you. I mean, just google "if I passed you on the right" and the internet does it for me.

I bet my wife $10 the first thing you'd do is quote me and call me a road rager. As if people using common sense and utilizing the fast lane for it's intended purpose are all angry psychopaths. Please. And FYI, most impeding laws actually cover commercial vehicles as well, in addition to any low-speed driving or other behavior that creates an unsafe driving condition for other vehicles, at the detaining officer's discretion. There's a million videos on youtube showing bad, slow, inobservant drivers colliding with semis. These laws protect the trucking companies as much as (or perhaps even more frequently than) they are used as punitive measures for impeding emergency response personnel.

 

[Weasel Caesar]

I do have to add, though... if you're driving a gladiator, I'll give you some long leeway. The slower you drive, the more I can admire your upgrades

 

[TheSolarWizard]

Tailgating road rager? I feel the anger coming threw my iPhone screen. Jeez. Despite what you believe, impeding traffic laws are not made to allow regular citizens to break the law and drive over the speed limit. They are made to make people get out the way for service vehicles or those going under a “minimum speed limit”.

I can’t speak to VA where it’s so backwards that owning a radar detector is a crime but in the vast majority of the states, holding up traffic by going the posted limit in the fast last is definitely a ticketable offense. The left lane is the passing lane not the cruising at the limit lane

 

[danielspivey]

Actually, no. Comedy is more satisying than rage- but the jokes are definitely on you. I mean, just google "if I passed you on the right" and the internet does it for me.

I bet my wife $10 the first thing you'd do is quote me and call me a road rager. As if people using common sense and utilizing the fast lane for it's intended purpose are all angry psychopaths. Please. And FYI, most impeding laws actually cover commercial vehicles as well, in addition to any low-speed driving or other behavior that creates an unsafe driving condition for other vehicles, at the detaining officer's discretion. There's a million videos on youtube showing bad, slow, inobservant drivers colliding with semis. These laws protect the trucking companies as much as (or perhaps even more frequently than) they are used as punitive measures for impeding emergency response personnel.

Google and YouTube, I wouldn’t expect any less... and I’m sorry you lost $10 to her.

Any attorneys or police officers in the forum? I bet there’s tons of case law on the subject.

 

[Weasel Caesar]

Google and YouTube, I wouldn’t expect any less... and I’m sorry you lost $10 to her.

Any attorneys or police officers in the forum? I bet there’s tons of case law on the subject.

I won the $10. You did what I said you would. It wasn't a real bet, obviously, we were just joking about the thread and I said, "watch, I bet you $10 bucks he replies and calls me a road rager." Which you did. Immediately. ?

 

[Weasel Caesar]

So, since you mentioned case law, I went ahead and looked up some info for my own state and found the following that may be illustrative. First, the actual law, which states, "A person shall not drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation," which you will note does not require that the traffic being impeded be emergency personnel, and also that it is somewhat subjective-- the kind of thing that is largely at officer discretion and whether the case gets thrown out is probably more a question of whether the officer shows up to testify.

As for actual cases, they referenced two on the site I was using, one where the case was upheld and the driver fined, the other where it was dismissed:

"Traffic stop was justified. — Police officer had probable cause to stop defendant for impeding traffic where defendant was traveling 35 miles per hour in a 55 miles per hour zone while occupying the inside traffic lane. State v. Mann, 1985-NMCA-107, 103 N.M. 660, 712 P.2d 6, cert. denied, 103 N.M. 740, 713 P.2d 556 (1986).

"Traffic stop not justified. — Police officer lacked probable cause to stop defendant for impeding traffic where defendant was traveling 45 miles per hour in a 55 miles per hour zone. U.S. v. Valadez-Valadez, 525 F.3d 987 (10th cir. 2008)."

So in some cases you might get away with driving in the slow lane, other cases you may not-- but you can 100% get pulled over and cited for it regardless, at least in my state.

Cheers and happy driving!

 

[danielspivey]

So, since you mentioned case law, I went ahead and looked up some info for my own state and found the following that may be illustrative. First, the actual law, which states, "A person shall not drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation," which you will note does not require that the traffic being impeded be emergency personnel, and also that it is somewhat subjective-- the kind of thing that is largely at officer discretion and whether the case gets thrown out is probably more a question of whether the officer shows up to testify.

As for actual cases, they referenced two on the site I was using, one where the case was upheld and the driver fined, the other where it was dismissed:

"Traffic stop was justified. — Police officer had probable cause to stop defendant for impeding traffic where defendant was traveling 35 miles per hour in a 55 miles per hour zone while occupying the inside traffic lane. State v. Mann, 1985-NMCA-107, 103 N.M. 660, 712 P.2d 6, cert. denied, 103 N.M. 740, 713 P.2d 556 (1986).

"Traffic stop not justified. — Police officer lacked probable cause to stop defendant for impeding traffic where defendant was traveling 45 miles per hour in a 55 miles per hour zone. U.S. v. Valadez-Valadez, 525 F.3d 987 (10th cir. 2008)."

So in some cases you might get away with driving in the slow lane, other cases you may not-- but you can 100% get pulled over and cited for it regardless, at least in my state.

Cheers and happy driving!

Great examples. So what does this show...

1) the likely hood of going 0-10 under the speed limit and getting a ticket, NOT likely

2) the likely hood of going 20 under and getting a Ticket.... likely

I think everyone can agree going 20 under the speed limit is not safe, but if a cop is dumb enough to write a ticket in the 0-10 range it’ll likely get thrown out.

 

[Wbrook24]

The “impeding” laws are only for cases where they are blocking an ambulance, fire truck or police officer. Another circumstance would be for not going a posted minimum speed speed limit, but these signs are rarely posted, except for places like mountain pass inclines.

If one were to get pulled over in the left lane that had a 65 mph speed limit for going 60, it would be thrown out immediately in court.

Wrong wording but Google "Georgia slow poke law" and it will come up. If your just sitting in the fast lane going slower then the flow of traffic you can be pulled over. Even if your going the speed limit. I have seen it happen on 575. Everywhere is different and might not apply to your area.

 

[Nitroexpress]

.....and back to the purpose of this thread...

I just had the Automatic breaking make the warning sound with no actual brake application happen while traveling under a larger overpass. It was this morning, before sun up, so that removes my theory about shadows. The overpass was much higher up than the other overpass where I have experienced this 'phenomenon'. First time I have been on this road with the Jeep, as I was avoiding a traffic jam on my normal route.

 

[SwampNut]

It's

.....and back to the purpose of this thread...

No, let's keep the purse-swinging and bitch-slapping going for a while! It's only that time of the month every four weeks.

You said "larger" so in context we're talking say, at least two lanes per side, and 14-ish feet high?

 

[Nitroexpress]

It's


No, let's keep the purse-swinging and bitch-slapping going for a while! It's only that time of the month every four weeks.

You said "larger" so in context we're talking say, at least two lanes per side, and 14-ish feet high?

Yeah, more "spaghetti bowl" type overpass. Lanes going in multiple directions. Much higher in elevation that the other overpass where I have experienced this.

 

[SwampNut]

It's interesting that I've never seen this, and have been on a lot of different overpasses along the Phoenix area to parts of Southern CA. I wonder if they are just different, or you have something unique to your JT. Thinking out loud.

 

[Wbrook24]

It's interesting that I've never seen this, and have been on a lot of different overpasses along the Phoenix area to parts of Southern CA. I wonder if they are just different, or you have something unique to your JT. Thinking out loud.

The bridge I was going under was a bit lower then most in my area. It was also bright out so the shadows had more contrast. Going under a bridge does seem to be the common denominator in several of our occurrences.
Was going under a dual bridge 4 lanes each side.

 

[gpwrang33]

i have not experienced this with my truck but I'm wondering if maybe the windshield where the camera is might be a little dirty? what setting do you have it set for, distance wise? if its set for far then its more sensitive. i have mine set in the middle of the three settings.

Sponsored