Oh, and please enlighten us all as to how it is inappropriate to be moving more slowly in a deceleration lane while preparing to exit the highway (limit 60) to a side street (limit 30) and how it is appropriate to be traveling at, or accelerating to, 80 mph in that same deceleration/exit lane at greater than highway speeds, while there is traffic ahead of you which is obeying the rules of the road pertaining to how to properly exit and be moving at a safe speed upon entering a side street. Where exactly was the infraction? Was I supposed to shoot off the highway at a greater than legal speed and enter the side street still moving at 60 mph?
You do not seem to even have comprehended the basic circumstances I outlined in my story, but I am not surprised by that given the fact that you seem to think yourself judge, jury, and executioner of a nonexistent offense that took place without you as a witness.
What does it matter where I live? I've already explained that being where I am is necessary for what I am doing at the time I am doing it. Yes, I do normally drive in the right lane. If I am not there, I have good reason, and that does not change the fact that passing on the right is illegal. I also have stated my story in such a way that it should be apparent that the passing was illegal and unwarranted and motivated by greed, selfishness, and me-first attitude. I also already explained that I obey all applicable rules of the road, that should have backed that up. I am not trying to enforce anything more than the fact that all this snark is totally unwarranted and I do not know what grounds are being used to vilify me even after repeated statements of these facts. I ask you, where were you when these things happened that permit you to be able to make judgments? How do you know which car is mine? Describe it, give the time, date, and place and state what you saw.
Did the police actually tell you that? (And even if they did, how do you know they didn't make it up because they, like so many people these days, think it's cool to sneer at anyone who does something good for the environment?)
Did they, or the paper you looked at, tell you how the limits are actually chosen? Did they explain why the limits might be different at times?
Also, yes, there are recommended limits for particular types of road, but there can be circumstances that apply to specific roads that cause limits to be higher or lower on those roads but not on others of the same class -- presence of or lack of sight distances, lots of intersecting streets or driveways, whether there are center turn lanes, etc. etc. Lots of things can have an influence on the limits. You can't say "the limit is XX on the road over there, this looks like the same kind of road, so I'll go XX when I'm on this road, even though the limit says YY." If it's lower, there is probably a good reason for it.
Real speed traps are easy to detect (sharp drops in limit for a short time, suddenly, often on a downhill slope, for instance), but when you see a lower limit than might be expected without the signs of a speed trap, it probably isn't one.
It's also not unknown that cops don't go after everyone, but "everyone does it" won't get you out of a ticket -- the cop will just say "we can't catch them all".
Go look up 'deceleration' and how it applies to exit lanes and try again. And yet again you're making a judgmental comment about me even though you were never there. I'm not a slow driver. I'm a very average driver. But you couldn't possibly know that without being there, could you? Nope, you're just another internet asshole who thinks all-caps self-righteous judgmental snark is warranted.
You also seem to think that everything you don't like is a conspiracy to steal your money never mind the fact that there is probably a good reason for the low limit; why don't you ASK the local roads department? I'm sure they'd explain to you if you did. And you know what? You won't get a ticket if you don't break the law.
My car actually has an option for that though it's not turned on by default and I had to use a VAG-COM to enable it. If you panic-brake, the hazard lights turn on automatically. I've never tried to set it off; maybe sometime if I have access to a track or something similar, I'll give it a shot. If you're driving a recent Volkswagen, that's something you can do too but it'd have to be 3 years old or newer, roughly, depending on model.
I wasn't trying to suggest emulating a panic stop; just a gentle deceleration. I can get pretty steep deceleration if I go down three gears or so, but I can get it to be pretty gentle with just one gear downshift. That hasn't given me trouble yet, and in any case nearly everywhere the rear-ender is at fault. That doesn't mean I go out of my way to invite a rear-ending, mind.
Incidentally, this is wholly unrelated but the answer to "automatic or manual?" to me is "both" -- I have a direct shift gearbox dual clutch automatic manual that either can be left in D or S or directly controlled with shift lever or paddles. It's great, at least for me, though I used to drive a manual so I'm pretty used to getting the reaction I want from the transmission.
I'm not sure what you're getting at with that. Those aren't the factors used to set speed limits in any case, and if you do a bit of research on how speed limits actually are set, you'll find that it is quite possible that the limit is incorrect (either too high or too low) and a survey just hasn't been done because no one's ever thought to do another one since the road was built. How would it hurt to submit a request to your local or state street department, whoever is in charge? It won't. And it's also entirely legal and your participation in public matters is only a good thing -- thinking you're above the law and behaving in a way that other drivers aren't going to expect is not only illegal but unsafe to you and everyone else on the road. What's so good about that?
OK then, fair enough. I'm sorry if I came across as harsher than I should have to you, but after getting screamed at twice for not having done anything wrong, well, you know how it goes. However, I get the impression you might be driving a bit fast... be careful and slow down a bit if you are, okay? No one needs to get hurt. I cringe every time I see an accident because of all the irresponsible idiots around here. I'm not saying this to be mean, I just don't like seeing people get hurt.
1. No, that doesn't cause traffic jams in itself. Following too closely and having to brake sharply when the car in front of you does (due to lack of two seconds of space) causes traffic jams.
2. Why would they be burning more fuel at, say, 35mph compared to 40 mph? It's sharp acceleration that uses the most fuel.
3. There are going to be cars behind you no matter what speed you drive at. So we all must be me-first drivers if we dare to venture out of our driveways.
4. Where the hell did you get the idea that my hypothetical driver would be speeding? I was talking about gently applying the throttle to maintain speed up the hill instead of slamming the pedal down all at once instead, which wastes gas.
5. If you find yourself having to slam on the brakes and accelerate suddenly as a result of what the driver ahead of you is doing, you're following too closely and need to back off.
Problem with that is that not only am I not going to put someone's life in danger deliberately (I'm not a road rager -- honking or highbeaming is my limit and those are harmless things), but you can also get in trouble for doing that -- I'm not sure what the charge is but assault with a deadly weapon or attempted homicide or something similar would probably fit. You would be using your vehicle to deliberately attempt to severely injure or murder another person. For what charge would actually fit, ask a police officer.
Honestly, I should have called the local bad-driver report hotline (we have one in my area) and given them the make and model of the offender's vehicle in addition to the license number.
Okay, I do have a suggestion: what about downshifting 1-2 gears, which will cause you to decelerate but not flash your brake lights, and hopefully not cause jams due to overreaction to brake lights? I have been able to alleviate jams in the lane behind me simply by combining maintaining a good following distance (and if someone cuts in, I just let off the accelerator for a moment to re-establish the two-second gap) and using the transmission to decelerate as needed instead of the brakes so that others don't overreact to the brake lights, unless I need to emergency slow.
So you automatically judge people based on what they drive? I see. So that must mean that everyone with a Honda is a ricer, too, doesn't it? After all, there's a lot of ricers out there in Civics, so all Civic drivers must be ricers, right? My family owned a Civic for a long time (we drove it for over a decade, then sold it, and I still see it around, so it's not dead yet 20 years on). Yet, we're not ricers.
Yes, it's a good idea to anticipate what someone ahead of you will do -- but you should do that based on their behavior, not what they drive.
And what case would that be? You have no grounds to snark at me and you know it. Just let it go already. Is it really that important to you to try to look better than a total stranger? Go find something else to snark at where you actually have grounds to argue.
True, but the limit is the limit, and if you don't like it, you don't get to think you're better than the law. If you don't like it, the right way to do something about it is to get the highway department to resurvey the road and if the limit is improper it will be changed.
You apparently read right past the part where I explained that not only do hypermilers not drive below the speed limit most of the time, but YOU are responsible for not hitting cars in front of you. There is a reason that it is automatically your fault if you rear-end someone.
As for the bullshit you spew in your second paragraph, since you are I-Was-Not-There-But-I'm-Going-To-Lecture-You Internet Asshole #2, I'm just going to refer you to my comment no. #25020179 and you can shove your snark up your ass. In most civilized countries, using a deceleration lane AS IT WAS MEANT TO BE USED would be respected, and someone obeying the rules regarding decleration lanes would not even be nearly hit ONCE, let alone TWICE.
Why exactly am I an ass for being irked that I was nearly hit not once but twice in a DECELERATION EXIT-ONLY LANE by a driver exceeding the legal limit by at least 20 miles per hour? I was driving legally. Pencildick was not.
And I am sick and tired of internet strangers magically thinking they were there, are qualified to make judgments about why I am in the lane I am in and automatically assume I should not be there. I obey the laws -- all of them -- and I don't think I deserve to be judged by people who weren't there who automatically think they have a right to snark and make assumptions about what happened. You were not there, you have no right to judge me, and I am not going to say anything more than I was in the right place at the right time. Oh, by the way, "passing on the right" can and does include passing on the shoulder or on on and off ramps. Did your self-righteous attitude include those possibilities?
You were not there. I was. I am speaking from firsthand knowledge that I did nothing wrong. Your foot is placed firmly in your mouth. Hope you like the taste of that crap on the bottom of your shoe.
Yet another example of "if anyone dares to bitch about me-first drivers, they must be doing something wrong".
I know that you can build a gas engine with lots of torque. I'm just trying to point out where the misconception comes from among some who think that gas engines don't have torque. It's there, it's just not used as much by the average driver.
And how do you magically know that I'm not where I need to be for a good reason? You don't. And by the way, I am. So don't criticize what you don't understand.
Not really. Diesel engines have a lot more torque at the low end which is where most driving is done, especially for those of us who live in urban areas. This is, in part, why vehicles that carry heavy loads use diesel engines because all the torque needed to pull that load is there when it's needed.
Have you ever heard the saying that "people buy horsepower and drive torque"? My VW DSG FSI engine, which is quite efficient for a gas engine, and is largely topped efficiencywise by cars like the Honda Fit and similar -- to be expected because they're smaller and lighter, but the VW engine is quite respectable and I routinely get 31+ highway, variable mileage in the city but pretty good -- but it would easily be topped torquewise by a diesel. It's just an inherent property of diesel engines. A 90-horsepower VW TDI diesel feels as "peppy", with the kind of driving most people do, as an engine with 150 horsepower because of the power band and because that torque is available down low.
This is not to say that either gas engines or diesel engines are "bad". It is merely that they are inherently different and the torque curve is one of them. Diesel fans aren't being biased when they say there's more torque in a diesel -- not really. They are getting more of it perhaps because most drive time is probably spent at lower rpm (I know that in commute traffic, mine is) so yes, at those same rpms they do get more torque than our gas engines do.
They should, it is true, modify their statement but most people aren't gearheads and don't know how to be more specific.
I hope I am making some kind of sense with my attempt to address your complaint/comment and explain where the problem is arising.
If the construction isn't that far from the road and/or doesn't have Jersey barriers, then slower speeds are a good idea because it's easier to react in time to avoid trouble, and slower impact speeds will cause less injury to workers if they are struck (but the injuries will still be pretty severe -- still, anything you can do will help). I suspect that the limit is reduced in safer zones like the ones you describe because it's quite likely a general state rule that applies to all construction sites.
Unfortunately, despite a number of worker deaths in the last few years, especially close to the city where I live, people don't seem to heed the signs, and if you slow down to the temporary limit, other drivers will whip around you at not only the regular speed limit but the regular limit plus whatever pad they seem to think they're entitled to -- and I never see them get pulled over.
Never mind the fact that I think most of those people wouldn't think of themselves as the type to do things that could kill another person. Think, McFly, think! And slow it down!
Actually, this does not cause a traffic jam. Gently slowing and accelerating as required by terrain and traffic uses less fuel than sharp braking and accelerating. I have never had a problem with gently slowing up a hill, and gently applying the throttle as required while climbing, but mileage decreases dramatically by using "standard" techniques (as in me-first-driver techniques).
Gently climbing hills without flooring it and therefore using too much fuel doesn't automatically mean "driving below the limit" or any such thing. It simply means good technique. If traffic jams up, it's because people are following too closely (the two-second rule: are you obeying it?) or failing to otherwise ensure that there is sufficient space around them to 'take up' the variation in speed of vehicles ahead (and there will always be a variation to some extent; again, use the two-second rule, at LEAST).
Stop blaming other motorists and fix your driving habits so that you don't HAVE to slam on your brakes (and cause, or be a part of, a cause-and-effect wave behind you).
I don't get it either, as I said in my reply elsewhere in this thread. It's not a threat unless you're one of those me-first types, and I also don't understand why people who merely obey the law are seen as something to brush aside. I don't speed (or if I do, it is not deliberate and I slow back down to the limit) and I am passed left and right (and passing on the right is not legal) and I've seen people scream on discussion forums at anyone who dares to obey the law, as if obeying the law is something to sneer at (it's not; the rules exist for a damn good reason and no one is above it).
The most recent incident: I had an idiot in a large full-size SUV that I am doing 50 in an exit-only deceleration lane branching off a road where the limit is 60, and the upcoming exit is, due to construction, hazardous and should be navigated at 30-40mph (and in fact said idiot came an inch from my rear bumper, high-beamed (and blinded me, since he was in an SUV at night) and then swerved around me and back in front of me an inch from my FRONT bumper -- enjoy MY high beams, jackass -- and was stuck at the same red light I was at the bottom of the exit. (WTF? Dude, you have no excuse to have been doing 80 in an exit-only lane). I now call that guy Pencildick.
Seriously, why do people seem to get off on being as much of a danger as possible to others on the road?
Slashdot Mirror
This was posted to the wrong thread.
Oh, and please enlighten us all as to how it is inappropriate to be moving more slowly in a deceleration lane while preparing to exit the highway (limit 60) to a side street (limit 30) and how it is appropriate to be traveling at, or accelerating to, 80 mph in that same deceleration/exit lane at greater than highway speeds, while there is traffic ahead of you which is obeying the rules of the road pertaining to how to properly exit and be moving at a safe speed upon entering a side street. Where exactly was the infraction? Was I supposed to shoot off the highway at a greater than legal speed and enter the side street still moving at 60 mph?
You do not seem to even have comprehended the basic circumstances I outlined in my story, but I am not surprised by that given the fact that you seem to think yourself judge, jury, and executioner of a nonexistent offense that took place without you as a witness.
What does it matter where I live? I've already explained that being where I am is necessary for what I am doing at the time I am doing it. Yes, I do normally drive in the right lane. If I am not there, I have good reason, and that does not change the fact that passing on the right is illegal. I also have stated my story in such a way that it should be apparent that the passing was illegal and unwarranted and motivated by greed, selfishness, and me-first attitude. I also already explained that I obey all applicable rules of the road, that should have backed that up. I am not trying to enforce anything more than the fact that all this snark is totally unwarranted and I do not know what grounds are being used to vilify me even after repeated statements of these facts. I ask you, where were you when these things happened that permit you to be able to make judgments? How do you know which car is mine? Describe it, give the time, date, and place and state what you saw.
Did the police actually tell you that? (And even if they did, how do you know they didn't make it up because they, like so many people these days, think it's cool to sneer at anyone who does something good for the environment?)
Did they, or the paper you looked at, tell you how the limits are actually chosen? Did they explain why the limits might be different at times?
Also, yes, there are recommended limits for particular types of road, but there can be circumstances that apply to specific roads that cause limits to be higher or lower on those roads but not on others of the same class -- presence of or lack of sight distances, lots of intersecting streets or driveways, whether there are center turn lanes, etc. etc. Lots of things can have an influence on the limits. You can't say "the limit is XX on the road over there, this looks like the same kind of road, so I'll go XX when I'm on this road, even though the limit says YY." If it's lower, there is probably a good reason for it.
Real speed traps are easy to detect (sharp drops in limit for a short time, suddenly, often on a downhill slope, for instance), but when you see a lower limit than might be expected without the signs of a speed trap, it probably isn't one.
It's also not unknown that cops don't go after everyone, but "everyone does it" won't get you out of a ticket -- the cop will just say "we can't catch them all".
Go look up 'deceleration' and how it applies to exit lanes and try again. And yet again you're making a judgmental comment about me even though you were never there. I'm not a slow driver. I'm a very average driver. But you couldn't possibly know that without being there, could you? Nope, you're just another internet asshole who thinks all-caps self-righteous judgmental snark is warranted.
You also seem to think that everything you don't like is a conspiracy to steal your money never mind the fact that there is probably a good reason for the low limit; why don't you ASK the local roads department? I'm sure they'd explain to you if you did. And you know what? You won't get a ticket if you don't break the law.
My car actually has an option for that though it's not turned on by default and I had to use a VAG-COM to enable it. If you panic-brake, the hazard lights turn on automatically. I've never tried to set it off; maybe sometime if I have access to a track or something similar, I'll give it a shot. If you're driving a recent Volkswagen, that's something you can do too but it'd have to be 3 years old or newer, roughly, depending on model.
I wasn't trying to suggest emulating a panic stop; just a gentle deceleration. I can get pretty steep deceleration if I go down three gears or so, but I can get it to be pretty gentle with just one gear downshift. That hasn't given me trouble yet, and in any case nearly everywhere the rear-ender is at fault. That doesn't mean I go out of my way to invite a rear-ending, mind.
Incidentally, this is wholly unrelated but the answer to "automatic or manual?" to me is "both" -- I have a direct shift gearbox dual clutch automatic manual that either can be left in D or S or directly controlled with shift lever or paddles. It's great, at least for me, though I used to drive a manual so I'm pretty used to getting the reaction I want from the transmission.
I'm not sure what you're getting at with that. Those aren't the factors used to set speed limits in any case, and if you do a bit of research on how speed limits actually are set, you'll find that it is quite possible that the limit is incorrect (either too high or too low) and a survey just hasn't been done because no one's ever thought to do another one since the road was built. How would it hurt to submit a request to your local or state street department, whoever is in charge? It won't. And it's also entirely legal and your participation in public matters is only a good thing -- thinking you're above the law and behaving in a way that other drivers aren't going to expect is not only illegal but unsafe to you and everyone else on the road. What's so good about that?
Go ahead. I don't care. All the wit in the world doesn't change the fact that you gambled, and you lost.
OK then, fair enough. I'm sorry if I came across as harsher than I should have to you, but after getting screamed at twice for not having done anything wrong, well, you know how it goes. However, I get the impression you might be driving a bit fast ... be careful and slow down a bit if you are, okay? No one needs to get hurt. I cringe every time I see an accident because of all the irresponsible idiots around here. I'm not saying this to be mean, I just don't like seeing people get hurt.
Translation: Yes, you are.
You're not much for reading the whole thread before posting, are you?
1. No, that doesn't cause traffic jams in itself. Following too closely and having to brake sharply when the car in front of you does (due to lack of two seconds of space) causes traffic jams.
2. Why would they be burning more fuel at, say, 35mph compared to 40 mph? It's sharp acceleration that uses the most fuel.
3. There are going to be cars behind you no matter what speed you drive at. So we all must be me-first drivers if we dare to venture out of our driveways.
4. Where the hell did you get the idea that my hypothetical driver would be speeding? I was talking about gently applying the throttle to maintain speed up the hill instead of slamming the pedal down all at once instead, which wastes gas.
5. If you find yourself having to slam on the brakes and accelerate suddenly as a result of what the driver ahead of you is doing, you're following too closely and need to back off.
Problem with that is that not only am I not going to put someone's life in danger deliberately (I'm not a road rager -- honking or highbeaming is my limit and those are harmless things), but you can also get in trouble for doing that -- I'm not sure what the charge is but assault with a deadly weapon or attempted homicide or something similar would probably fit. You would be using your vehicle to deliberately attempt to severely injure or murder another person. For what charge would actually fit, ask a police officer.
Honestly, I should have called the local bad-driver report hotline (we have one in my area) and given them the make and model of the offender's vehicle in addition to the license number.
Okay, I do have a suggestion: what about downshifting 1-2 gears, which will cause you to decelerate but not flash your brake lights, and hopefully not cause jams due to overreaction to brake lights? I have been able to alleviate jams in the lane behind me simply by combining maintaining a good following distance (and if someone cuts in, I just let off the accelerator for a moment to re-establish the two-second gap) and using the transmission to decelerate as needed instead of the brakes so that others don't overreact to the brake lights, unless I need to emergency slow.
So you automatically judge people based on what they drive? I see. So that must mean that everyone with a Honda is a ricer, too, doesn't it? After all, there's a lot of ricers out there in Civics, so all Civic drivers must be ricers, right? My family owned a Civic for a long time (we drove it for over a decade, then sold it, and I still see it around, so it's not dead yet 20 years on). Yet, we're not ricers.
Yes, it's a good idea to anticipate what someone ahead of you will do -- but you should do that based on their behavior, not what they drive.
And what case would that be? You have no grounds to snark at me and you know it. Just let it go already. Is it really that important to you to try to look better than a total stranger? Go find something else to snark at where you actually have grounds to argue.
True, but the limit is the limit, and if you don't like it, you don't get to think you're better than the law. If you don't like it, the right way to do something about it is to get the highway department to resurvey the road and if the limit is improper it will be changed.
You apparently read right past the part where I explained that not only do hypermilers not drive below the speed limit most of the time, but YOU are responsible for not hitting cars in front of you. There is a reason that it is automatically your fault if you rear-end someone.
As for the bullshit you spew in your second paragraph, since you are I-Was-Not-There-But-I'm-Going-To-Lecture-You Internet Asshole #2, I'm just going to refer you to my comment no. #25020179 and you can shove your snark up your ass. In most civilized countries, using a deceleration lane AS IT WAS MEANT TO BE USED would be respected, and someone obeying the rules regarding decleration lanes would not even be nearly hit ONCE, let alone TWICE.
Why exactly am I an ass for being irked that I was nearly hit not once but twice in a DECELERATION EXIT-ONLY LANE by a driver exceeding the legal limit by at least 20 miles per hour? I was driving legally. Pencildick was not.
And I am sick and tired of internet strangers magically thinking they were there, are qualified to make judgments about why I am in the lane I am in and automatically assume I should not be there. I obey the laws -- all of them -- and I don't think I deserve to be judged by people who weren't there who automatically think they have a right to snark and make assumptions about what happened. You were not there, you have no right to judge me, and I am not going to say anything more than I was in the right place at the right time. Oh, by the way, "passing on the right" can and does include passing on the shoulder or on on and off ramps. Did your self-righteous attitude include those possibilities?
You were not there. I was. I am speaking from firsthand knowledge that I did nothing wrong. Your foot is placed firmly in your mouth. Hope you like the taste of that crap on the bottom of your shoe.
Yet another example of "if anyone dares to bitch about me-first drivers, they must be doing something wrong".
I know that you can build a gas engine with lots of torque. I'm just trying to point out where the misconception comes from among some who think that gas engines don't have torque. It's there, it's just not used as much by the average driver.
And how do you magically know that I'm not where I need to be for a good reason? You don't. And by the way, I am. So don't criticize what you don't understand.
Not really. Diesel engines have a lot more torque at the low end which is where most driving is done, especially for those of us who live in urban areas. This is, in part, why vehicles that carry heavy loads use diesel engines because all the torque needed to pull that load is there when it's needed.
Have you ever heard the saying that "people buy horsepower and drive torque"? My VW DSG FSI engine, which is quite efficient for a gas engine, and is largely topped efficiencywise by cars like the Honda Fit and similar -- to be expected because they're smaller and lighter, but the VW engine is quite respectable and I routinely get 31+ highway, variable mileage in the city but pretty good -- but it would easily be topped torquewise by a diesel. It's just an inherent property of diesel engines. A 90-horsepower VW TDI diesel feels as "peppy", with the kind of driving most people do, as an engine with 150 horsepower because of the power band and because that torque is available down low.
This is not to say that either gas engines or diesel engines are "bad". It is merely that they are inherently different and the torque curve is one of them. Diesel fans aren't being biased when they say there's more torque in a diesel -- not really. They are getting more of it perhaps because most drive time is probably spent at lower rpm (I know that in commute traffic, mine is) so yes, at those same rpms they do get more torque than our gas engines do.
They should, it is true, modify their statement but most people aren't gearheads and don't know how to be more specific.
I hope I am making some kind of sense with my attempt to address your complaint/comment and explain where the problem is arising.
If the construction isn't that far from the road and/or doesn't have Jersey barriers, then slower speeds are a good idea because it's easier to react in time to avoid trouble, and slower impact speeds will cause less injury to workers if they are struck (but the injuries will still be pretty severe -- still, anything you can do will help). I suspect that the limit is reduced in safer zones like the ones you describe because it's quite likely a general state rule that applies to all construction sites.
Unfortunately, despite a number of worker deaths in the last few years, especially close to the city where I live, people don't seem to heed the signs, and if you slow down to the temporary limit, other drivers will whip around you at not only the regular speed limit but the regular limit plus whatever pad they seem to think they're entitled to -- and I never see them get pulled over.
Never mind the fact that I think most of those people wouldn't think of themselves as the type to do things that could kill another person. Think, McFly, think! And slow it down!
Actually, this does not cause a traffic jam. Gently slowing and accelerating as required by terrain and traffic uses less fuel than sharp braking and accelerating. I have never had a problem with gently slowing up a hill, and gently applying the throttle as required while climbing, but mileage decreases dramatically by using "standard" techniques (as in me-first-driver techniques).
Gently climbing hills without flooring it and therefore using too much fuel doesn't automatically mean "driving below the limit" or any such thing. It simply means good technique. If traffic jams up, it's because people are following too closely (the two-second rule: are you obeying it?) or failing to otherwise ensure that there is sufficient space around them to 'take up' the variation in speed of vehicles ahead (and there will always be a variation to some extent; again, use the two-second rule, at LEAST).
Stop blaming other motorists and fix your driving habits so that you don't HAVE to slam on your brakes (and cause, or be a part of, a cause-and-effect wave behind you).
I don't get it either, as I said in my reply elsewhere in this thread. It's not a threat unless you're one of those me-first types, and I also don't understand why people who merely obey the law are seen as something to brush aside. I don't speed (or if I do, it is not deliberate and I slow back down to the limit) and I am passed left and right (and passing on the right is not legal) and I've seen people scream on discussion forums at anyone who dares to obey the law, as if obeying the law is something to sneer at (it's not; the rules exist for a damn good reason and no one is above it).
The most recent incident: I had an idiot in a large full-size SUV that I am doing 50 in an exit-only deceleration lane branching off a road where the limit is 60, and the upcoming exit is, due to construction, hazardous and should be navigated at 30-40mph (and in fact said idiot came an inch from my rear bumper, high-beamed (and blinded me, since he was in an SUV at night) and then swerved around me and back in front of me an inch from my FRONT bumper -- enjoy MY high beams, jackass -- and was stuck at the same red light I was at the bottom of the exit. (WTF? Dude, you have no excuse to have been doing 80 in an exit-only lane). I now call that guy Pencildick.
Seriously, why do people seem to get off on being as much of a danger as possible to others on the road?