Slashdot Mirror
Nissan Plans To Sell Self-Driving Cars By 2020
Lucas123 writes "Nissan today said it will begin demonstrating autonomous vehicle technology on its all-electric Leaf this year, and plans to begin selling multiple models of self-driving cars by 2020. Nissan said it's already building an autonomous drive proving ground in Japan. Its goal is availability across the model range within two vehicle generations. The car company, which is among several others and Google in developing autonomous driving tech, is currently working with top universities, including MIT, Stanford, Carnegie Mellon, Oxford and The University of Tokyo, to develop its self-drive technology."
No more tailgating, left lane hogging, pulling out without indicating, running red lights, drunk driving or any of that other stuff the meat-based drivers keep on doing.
Free up the roads for people who don't see driving as a chore and make an effort to drive properly.
No sig today...
So because the car's going to follow the law, you're upset?
"Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
Why wouldn't Uber buy their fleet of cars from Nissan, instead of from Google?
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
What happens when every car uses lidar, or some other range finding technology? Won't they interfere with each other and cause problems?
Autonomous cars will improve traffic considerably, because they can safely tailgate other autonomous cars.
Have you considered not driving like an asshole?
Looks like taxi drivers and most truckers might be out of work in less than 10 years.
This is a better headline. To those of us over 35, we have been trained to think of 2020 as a long time from now.
All these cars will religiously follow the speed limit, boxing up roads and not permitting those of us who are in a rush to get around them. The road rage will cause accidents, I guarantee that.
Learn to let go, then. The problem isn't the law-abiding the drivers. It's the high strung ones.
I've driven in states where the standard is to speed heavily, and I've driven in states where the standard is to go the speed limit. In my experience, there's a lot less road rage when people are going the speed limit. There's less variation in speed when everyone is following the same standard, which means less people tailgating, less lane changes to pass, and less people cutting each other off.
For me, eliminating the "must get there quicker" mentality sharply decreased my aggression when driving. I am a *much* better driver now than I was when I was younger and treating the highway like a personal race track and getting frustrated when someone got in the way of going the speed I wanted to go. Being forced to go the speed limit taught me to chill and let go of the little irritations that are the seeds of road rage.
So, I say bring on the fleet of law-abiding autonomous vehicles. Maybe it'll teach the rest of you to cool your frigging heads. (And to get off my lawn!)
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
All these cars will religiously follow the speed limit, boxing up roads and not permitting those of us who are in a rush to get around them. The road rage will cause accidents, I guarantee that.
These accidents will likely be mostly minor fender-benders that result in the road-ragers losing their licenses (unless, of course, they get a self-driving car.) Or, That, and you'd also probably see road-ragers driving themselves off the road and into fixed objects. The automatic cars'll generally do a pretty good job of avoiding serious collisions--far better than even a reasonably skillled human driver could.
If a person is so lacking in maturity and self-control that they'd start ramming automated cars for not letting them treat the road as their own personal speedway, it's highly unlikely that these individuals are able to conduct themselves in a mature manner in today's traffic. We're not looking at a substantial net-up of people who have no business driving a car, y'know?
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
The main obstacle to self-driving cars isn't technological, it's cultural. Even if they get a commercially viable product on the road in 2020, it'll be at least a generation of these things being on the roads before people become comfortable enough with the technology to trust their lives to it en mass. And that doesn't even speak to the costs involved. High end luxury cars get the tech first and it trickles down, eventually. Factor that in with the cultural issues and we're probably not going to see widespread adoption of self-driving cars until 2050 or beyond.
"On a scale from 1 to 10, people are stupid"
IT will be within n their tolerance to stop, unlike that human jerk behind you.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Cars in the left lane are supposed to follow the law too.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
...shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
You are causing the accidents. YOU are rushing. YOU are driving unsafe. YOU are risking other behind you.
It's not everyone else fault you can't get to work on time. If you cant control it, then you should have your license revoked until you have attended anger management classes.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
There is no rule that says the left lane is for speeding.
The left lane is NOT a speeding lane. It is not you personal driving lane. It is not their responsibility that you can't drive legally.
Suck it up and stop causing accident, you jerk.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I would recommend autonomous car makers stay out of the litigious US market initially, and focus their initial launch on some place like Singapore.
It has:
1) No Snow, which is still causes difficult problem for autonomous vehicles.
2) Highly structured environment. It is a nation that essentially consists of a single, highly-organized city.
3) That single city has a government that operates as a sovereign entity, and can adapt its legal framework to accommodate the cars.
4) That sovereign entity has demonstrated itself to be business friendly (sometimes at the expense of the individual).
5) Has car owners who are accustomed to accepting extensive government regulation and oversight.
Much as I would love the idea of having a self-driving car myself, I can't see how such a thing is compatible with American Society.
What if there's a squirrel, a cat, a dog or a frickin' deer on the road?
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Autonomous cars still have a minimum stopping distance, and it would be unwise for an autonomous car to tailgate even another autonomous car since unexpected situations which can force an emergency brake (such as a child running out onto the road) can still arise. If the car ahead had to stop unexpectedly, a distance of only a few centimeters would not be sufficient for your own vehicle to safely stop in time, even though you've taken human reaction time entirely out of the equation. I expect, instead, that minimum car spacing may still be reduced... but still somehow be a function of the posted speed limit.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
So because the car's going to follow the law, you're upset?
The quickest way to create a traffic jam and an immense road hazard is to follow every driving law to the letter.
In the past, truck drivers have done this when they want to make a statement about a new law they don't like. All it takes is one for each lane. Each truck going exactly the truck speed limit (often lower than auto). The backup goes for miles. Even if they obey a law that prohibits trucks in the left-most lane of a more than 2 lane freeway, it still blocks traffic quite well.
If every autodrive car follows the laws to the letter, there will be no increase in traffic capacity. They'll all be going the same speed, and since they aren't passing, they'll all be in the right lane. Plenty of room for real drivers to play.
Now, the question is, will they all be obeying the laws? Will each vehicle computer do an analysis on its own driving ability and the outside conditions and determine the maximum safe speed? Will this become a sales point? "Our cars are safer than brand X at higher speeds under the same conditions, so you'll get where you want to go faster?"
Using human pilots we've hit the limit as to how many cars we can pack into a second in one lane at highway speeds. At 70 mph, the most you can do is two cars passing a given point in one second. We've plateaued.
If we drive slow enough to follow another car at a safe distance, throughput suffers. If we travel higher speeds, we have to reduce the distance between cars and throughput also suffers. You could add more lanes, but the costs would be enormous on average. You could try to force people to drive smaller cars when alone or car-pool by mandate, but good luck w/those.
Autonomous cars will allow tailgating and higher speeds, with much less risk, raising the effective traffic load to 3 cars per second, which is a 50% increase in throughput, without adding more lanes, going to double-decker limos for everyone, etc.
A car should only be in the left lane for overtaking or for turning left. That's a law as well, but the police rarely bother with it.
But if there are enough automated cars (everyone but you), you can go ahead and try to ram them. You won't succeed because they'll just get out of your way to avoid the collision. Talk about open roads... :-)
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
I like the European approach: if some passes you on the right, you get a ticket for blocking traffic. They may get a ticket for speeding, but you are still blocking traffic.
Phhh. Didn't Toyota already have a self-driving car?
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
"By 2060 it will be illegal for a human to drive a vehicle in the USA".
My prediction made in 2012.
I am a nobody so no one will notice.
Dave Barnes 9 breweries within walking distance of my house
They won't all be in the right lane when any need to make a left turn. I, for one, prefer to get into the lane I know I will ultimately need to be in as early as possible and remain there, instead of waiting for it to come up because, particularly in heavier traffic, I may not have the opportunity to lane-change when I am closer to the point where I am making the left turn.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Once people figure out that you can have sex in the car on the way to work only the lonely will still be driving.
As we all know from Back to the Future, 2015 is the era of flying cars. However it seems there is an alternate timeline in which people are too much of a risk to guide flying cars with the skill of Doc Brown. So we have to first develop autonomous cars and then transfer over to autonomous flying cars. Which pushes our timeline 2020.
You're a pretty good example for future laws mandating certain "drivers" only being in autonomous cars. If you can't handle the rules of driving because you're in a hurry, you should not be behind the wheel.
I get into the left lane whenever I know I will need to be turning left at some point up ahead, regardless of how far away it is, since I do not know for sure whether I will have the opportunity to safely move into the left lane when I get closer to where I'm going to turn.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
No, they're really not. In most states that's actually explicit - you can get a ticket for "impeding the flow of traffic" or somesuch if you drive at the speed limit in the left lane when the natural flow of traffic is faster. Yes, that does mean the police can give you a ticket either way, which shouldn't surprise you at this point.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
They won't just get out of the way if they cannot do so legally and safely.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
It probably depends on your jurisdiction... where I live, you'd *NEVER* get a ticket for "impeding flow of traffic" if you were driving the speed limit, regardless of which lane you were in.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
It seems to me that self-driving cars would be a big deal for elderly people who are don't want to give up driving despite really being incapable of driving safely.
If the "flow of traffic" is speeding, I don't really give a damn. I will drive at the posted limit, barring slippery road conditions that necessitate I need to drive slower.
If somebody rear-ends me, my insurance company will happily sue them while I get my car repaired at no cost to myself.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
The laws mainly target multiple people driving side-by-side at the speed limit as some sort of protest, but yeah I'm sure it depends on jurisdiction.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Having grown up in NYC and spent much of my life riding a bicycle on the streets of Manhattan, I came to the conclusion a long time ago that my first priority when riding my bicycle or driving a car is, wait for it, to not die.
Having lived and driven in many parts of the U.S. I've often been appalled at the cavalier way in which people drive. You're in a 1+ ton box of metal usually traveling at least 100km/h. Lots of ways to die in that scenario.
Perhaps others might decide that they too do not want to die, but I won't hold my breath. As such, I think autonomous vehicles will be a huge win for everyone except those with a death wish.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
Will autonomous vehicles have to have a driver on board? If not then delivery companies would love the idea of sacking all theirs. The public might not like having to fetch their parcels from a truck pulled up on the street outside their house, rather than have them delivered to the door, but meh.
Another thought, how long after the technology becomes commonplace before the first non-suicide truck bomb? If I can think it up, then presumably the security apparatus can also, and is right now considering this possibility; it'll be interesting to see what rules and restrictions come into force to try and prevent it.
Ah yes... the ancient tactic of insulting a person you disagree with to somehow discredit their position.
How quaint.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
It probably depends on your jurisdiction... where I live, you'd *NEVER* get a ticket for "impeding flow of traffic" if you were driving the speed limit, regardless of which lane you were in.
I've never seen someone get a ticket for this in the US, even though I believe they should. I've heard from friends in Germany that they will ticket a driver impeding traffic over one who is speeding, when both violations are visible to the officer.
a Black 1982 Pontiac Trans Am Ill be good to go.
There is no rule that says the left lane is for speeding.
The left lane is NOT a speeding lane. It is not you personal driving lane. It is not their responsibility that you can't drive legally.
Suck it up and stop causing accident, you jerk.
Righteous indignation is stronger that the fucking "slower traffic keep right" signs and laws, I guess. BTW, the posted speed limits are always 5-10 MPH LESS than the speed that is considered safe for any road. The "cheat" is built into the system. Anyone who insists on staying under the posted limit and feels it their duty to slow down traffic behind them should seriously consider changing their meds.
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
Meanwhile, I'm glad I drive a pickup. My next one, bought in three or four years, will probably last me until I don't need to worry about driving any more.
âoeAny society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
Next, if they are bumper on bumper, there is actually no speed difference. Even if the first car brakes a little bit harder than the following car, there will be no damage at all; the second car would just be pushing the first one a little bit.
You be surprised how easily you can lose control with a very slight tap or push from the rear, especially as you begin heavy braking. You can compensate somewhat by designing the car around the need to do this, but it's a hard problem. Even a fairly weak pull or push from the rear has a magnified effect in making the care more or less stable in braking and cornering.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
There are a vast majority of states where the left lane on multi-lane highways, by law, is for faster traffic and to be passing only. But, if you get a ticket for that, without the person getting a ticket for speeding, you should have no issue getting the charge dropped.
"Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
You have a bias against left-handed drive countries (of which there are many)?
Ahem. Let's revise that with some specifics and references, shall we?
"Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
I love to drive. I like to push the clutch, get into gear rev the accelerator and let out the clutch. I love to drive. I don't answer my cell when I'm driving, even though my wrangler has u-connect. I rather listen to my rock/blues collection and drive What I like about driving a Wrangler it's one of the only vehicles out that does not feel like you are driving by wire.
The geek/nerd/awe-seeker inside me loves the idea, but I don't know if we are (from a socio-economic pov) ready for mass-scale implementation of this kind of tech. (with this I mean technologies that automate some form of work)
Don't get me wrong, I really want us to be there, but we aren't.
Our current socioec. model doesn't cope well with abrupt changes in employment, we live in a survival race, a mostly well-mannered jungle law. There are lots of measures we could take to alleviate this but I don't see our beloved representatives caring much unless shtf, and we already know "s" never really "htf".
As per usual, science and technology don't give a flying fuck about all this nonsense and changes will come.
Oh well, you never know.
-- Counting backwards since 1984!
Nissan will be ready with revolutionary commercially-viable Autonomous Drive in multiple vehicles by the year 2020
Why would anyone buy a new Nissan, now that Nissan has told us that if we wait for six years (at the longest!) we could get one with Autonomous Drive?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osborne_Effect
Excellent. There are also different rules/customs in the city and subarbs, and sub-subarbs, but I like how slashdotters argue about their local rules being universal.
Next, if they are bumper on bumper, there is actually no speed difference. Even if the first car brakes a little bit harder than the following car, there will be no damage at all; the second car would just be pushing the first one a little bit.
You be surprised how easily you can lose control with a very slight tap or push from the rear, especially as you begin heavy braking. You can compensate somewhat by designing the car around the need to do this, but it's a hard problem. Even a fairly weak pull or push from the rear has a magnified effect in making the care more or less stable in braking and cornering.
A bump, yes, but what if the cars are stuck together with, say, electromagnet?
With autonomous cars that communicates with each other, it is possible to have purpose make attach points for two or more cars to physically stick together, forming a train. And if the first car needs to brake, the cars behind can brake with the reaction time of the speed of light (a signal from the first car). And difference in braking force will be spread through the train through the attach points, which would be designed to take the stress. Spinning would become almost impossible as the whole chain of cars will adjust and coordinate their individual braking with the speed of a computer.
Autonomous cars will only get safer with time, while manual driving won't improve much as you get new drivers in the road every day.
There is no rule that says the left lane is for speeding.
The left lane is NOT a speeding lane. It is not you personal driving lane. It is not their responsibility that you can't drive legally.
Suck it up and stop causing accident, you jerk.
Reading this is funny considering that for me, the left lane is the outside lane.
But your point stands. There is no designated speeding lane. Some laws dictate that you cant be in the inside lane if you're not overtaking but this varies.
Generally speaking though, on any dual carriageway (multi lane road) its just common god damn courtesy to not drive in the inside lane without a good reason (overtaking, turning, etc...). Courtesy isn't codified in law, but it's still a good bloody idea. The inside lane is not anyone's personal lane, be it for speeding or going slow.
Then again, courtesy is not that common
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Well, you couldn't just "stick them together" in any normal way, because cars shift significantly over their wheels under g-force in any direction, will hit bumps at different times, etc. You need something like a trailer hitch, or the actual hitches used to couple cars for towing.
Actual trains brake slowly, as you have to brake mostly from the rear and it takes time for weight shifting and "stretching" and you can only safely build braking force slowly. a line of couple cars would likely take noticeably longer to stop. Semi-tractors can stop very effectively by braking from the trailer, but that's a special case (most of the weight is on the rear trucks, only 2 nodes, brake bias carefully set, and they still jackknife in the rain).
Finally, note that a computer would likely do this all worse than connected air brakes on a train or road train, as the computer has very little data to work with, and air brakes equalize braking pressure very well (and every "car" has the same size tires and brakes).
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
You're right. The left lane is a passing lane.
I don't know where you are, but where I am slower traffic is supposed to keep right. There are signs that say so even.
But when will I be able to not drive one ?
I don't drive due to my poor vision.
If we had truly autonomous cars, we wouldn't need a car per person. One car can take you to your park-and-ride, your wife to work, your son to middle school, and your daughter to elementary school an hour later. Then, it can pick each person up and take them home. And just in case scheduling conflicts, you can team up with your brother and sister to form a 3-car system. Team up with more people, and you can start carpooling and sending the nearest available car to whoever needs it like a taxi service. Get a city involved, and you'll have the more adaptive and cheap bus system in the world, that picks you up on your doorstep and transfers you from car to bus with perfect timing. Routes and transfer points will change dynamically to route traffic most efficiently. Bus-only lanes and traffic light control will ensure calculations are accurate for the majority of the route. Even if you drove like a maniac, you'd have trouble beating an autonomous system that synchs all the traffic lights to its benefit, drove speed limit on the bus-only lane, and does a perfect transfer to car to take you from doorstep to doorstep. Or maybe it wouldn't be that hard because there will be so few cars on the road that owning a car would be like having your own private Jet.
So because your computer's going to follow the law, you're upset?
nt
WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
It is alarming how eager people are to turn over so much control to computers
Missing the point. Your car will receive the brake command from the lead vehicle, and brake with the exact same deceleration. You indeed won't stop in centimeters. You both will stop in 20 meters, keeping the distance at a fixed 20 centimeters the whole time. Modern cars have 4 wheel ABS sensors, which are adequate enough for this purpose.
And yes, we also can use those sensors to estimate the maximum possible car deceleration, so the whole road train can determine spacing on a car by car basis.
This will be independent of the posted speed limit - why would that matter? - but it will automatically take into account road conditions. On slippery roads, spacing will be adjusted.
I've never seen someone get a ticket for this in the US, even though I believe they should. I've heard from friends in Germany that they will ticket a driver impeding traffic over one who is speeding, when both violations are visible to the officer.
No, they ticket both. One for not keeping right, one for speeding and possibly for tailgating as well.
The latter is the bigger fine.
Eat the rich.
I look forward to an era of actual autonomous vehicles, but I think it may never happen at least on roads as they are now. Won't the driver have to constantly attentive in case he or she has to suddenly take over manual control? If not why not and if so then what's really the point?
Syntax error: loose != lose, affect != effect, then!=than
I live in Europe, it doesn't work that way.
Yes, if you're in the left lane for an extended amount of time and people pass you on the right, you'll get a ticket. Everyone who passed you on the right will get a ticket as well. But if you blast by someone on the right as soon as the smallest gap opens up, you'll be the only one getting a ticket, and a bigger one at that.
Eat the rich.
No, you self-centered ignoramus. The speed limit is the UPPER LIMIT of how fast you're allowed to go on a given stretch of road.
It's usually set based on the average driver in an average car on a wet road, giving a sensible safety margin on dry roads. It is NOT your prerogative to decide when to break this limit and by how much. There is NO SUCH thing as a "cheat" "built into the system". The limit is the limit, end of story.
Eat the rich.
Even better: It's not a game, it's not a race, the speed limit is the law. End of story.
Eat the rich.
I, for one, prefer to get into the lane I know I will ultimately need to be in as early as possible and remain there, instead of waiting for it to come up because, particularly in heavier traffic, I may not have the opportunity to lane-change when I am closer to the point where I am making the left turn.
In that case, you're impeding the natural flow of traffic.
It's not 100% your fault, drivers should always keep a 2-second following distance. This would let you change lanes in a trouble-free manner, without risking a collision. Unfortunately, people are egoistic bastards who refuse to let anyone "cut in front" of them. I've have a lot of people deliberately speed up to "close the gap" that I was trying to change lanes into. Fuck 'em, there was plenty of space when I put on my blinker and started my maneuver, so I'm going to complete it as smoothly as possible, they can honk and curse all they want.
Eat the rich.
Ah yes, the all-powerful "flow of traffic".
Is "the flow of traffic" above the traffic laws? No it isn't. Every action you take in traffic will have an effect on the flow, that's just how it is.
If mark-t knows that he'll be making a left turn up ahead, he should change lanes at a reasonable distance from the turn, put on his left blinker and obey the speed limit. People who want to go faster are then welcome to overtake on the right, as mark-t is clearly signaling his intention to turn left. It really isn't that difficult to comprehend, is it?
Eat the rich.
I replied to another comment of yours already, but something came to my mind.
My dad says pretty much the same thing as you, that he'll get in the left lane as early as possible, because otherwise no one is going to let him change lanes. He specifically mentioned some of the roads I drive on a regular basis, as examples. I have never had any trouble getting into the left lane on any of the roads he mentioned, or any other road, for that matter. I have no idea what I'm doing differently. I check for a gap, match speeds, put on my blinker and change lanes at a reasonable speed, never had a problem with it.
I usually drive anywere between 10km/h below the limit and about 10km/h over the limit, as shown by the speedometer in my car and depending on the conditions. Like most cars, the speedometer over-reads slightly, so my actual speed is probably somewhere around 5km/h over the actual limit. 10 over rather than 5 over, because it's far easier to place the speedometer needle right on a line at a glance instead of between two lines.
Eat the rich.
How about they fix the miserable range the LEaf has first?
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
From your very own link:
"Do higher speed limits cause more car accidents?
No, but they do cause more severe ones. Accidents that occur at high speeds are more often fatal, since high-velocity objects collide with greater force. Overwhelmingly, studies show that freeway deaths increase with freeway speed limits."
It's right there, black on white. Higher speeds = more fatal accidents.
Slow the fuck down.
Eat the rich.
Nissan should rather just plan to sell "cars" by 2020 as I haven't seen a Nissan I have ever wanted to buy.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
As is "Slower traffic keep right" (depending on jurisdiction).
If traffic is heavy enough that "no one is going to let him change lanes", that's probably a fair tactic and is fairly unlikely to cause issues since heavy traffic tends to be slower anyway. If he's doing it 1-2 miles early on an empty road (as I see some do), that's bad driving.
I wouldn't have to own a car. That would put me on a cloud a little closer to heaven.
I don't try to speed like my agenda is somehow more urgent than everyone else's on the road, who are equally legally obligated to obey the law, and *I'M* the self-centered wanker?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Absolutely.
But "slower traffic keep right" does not mean "get out of my way, slowpokes!".
Eat the rich.
Yeah, in heavy traffic, it's no problem. "Heavy traffic" is actually defined pretty well in the traffic laws of this country as "traffic moving in multiple lanes, with the speed determined by the vehicles in front". I presume there is a similar definition in US traffic laws.
The problem happens when traffic is relatively light, since by being in the left lane, he's technically blocking traffic in both lanes (depending on whether your local traffic laws permit passing on the right. It's illegal here unless to pass a vehicle that's clearly indicating an intention to turn left). Or in medium traffic where most of the vehicles want to take the same left turn. Then cars start bunching up and people get mad about others "cutting in line".
When passing on the right carries a ~$350 fine and the loss of 1 point on my license (out of 3 total, you lose your license if you lose all 3, and you get a lost point back after 3 years have passed since you lost it), damn straight I get annoyed at people hanging out for no reason in the left lane. But it's no excuse to pass them on the right or tailgate.
Eat the rich.
You think the unions would allow it anyway?
No, it's not for speeding, but which is more courteous to those around you: 1. Passing someone while driving 0.001 MPH faster than them, causing the passing maneuver to occur over several miles and potentially impeding the flow of traffic. 2. Briefly accelerating by just a few MPH to pass the car on the right and then returning to your normal speed once back in the right lane. While it may be speeding, a few MPH difference is not going to make much difference in terms of increased risk, and the tempers of all are likely to remain much cooler, reducing the likelihood of people attempting dangerous passing maneuvers such as weaving two lanes over to the right to get around you.
Road speeds are set for the weakest link, typically large top-heavy vehicles. Most cars are capable of being driven safely at significantly higher speeds. Mind you, some cars are significantly more capable than others. (And most drivers are less capable than they think they are, but that's a separate issue.)
You knowingly are causing annoyance to others and have no conscience about it, so yes, you're a bit of a wanker. Legally in the right, but still a bit of a wanker.
Is all fun and games until a B.S.O.D. or kernel panic kills 50 people on a freeway. I'll pass.