What's best?

Situation - 2lane (1 each direction) heavily traveled highway with passing opportunities sparse due to curves and hills. Posted 60 'flow' about 65.

I set cruise 64/65 and rarely get passed or pass someone. I don't even try to pass unless they are less than the posted. Say I catch up to someone doing about 61 (happened again today) so I slow to that pace. Okay, you are behind me, which do you prefer?

1. that I close up to a 2second distance behind the lead to allow you to, opportunity allowing, pass both of us at once?

2. Drop back far enough that you can pass me and then the lead in separate passes?

Yes, I will pull over if traffic backs up but there is really no point in doing so as they will just stack up behind that lead vehicle.

Harry K

On 04/04/2014 02:43 PM, Harry K wrote:
> Situation - 2lane (1 each direction) heavily traveled highway with
> passing opportunities sparse due to curves and hills. Posted 60
> 'flow' about 65.
>
> I set cruise 64/65 and rarely get passed or pass someone.

If it's really a lot of traffic, you really shouldn't be using cruise
control in that situation.

> I don't
> even try to pass unless they are less than the posted. Say I catch
> up to someone doing about 61 (happened again today) so I slow to that
> pace. Okay, you are behind me, which do you prefer?
>
> 1. that I close up to a 2second distance behind the lead to allow
> you to, opportunity allowing, pass both of us at once?
>
> 2. Drop back far enough that you can pass me and then the lead in
> separate passes?

I prefer the second option* out of the ones you gave. The reason is
that it's easier to pass one car individually rather than 2 or more
cars. I've been in situations where there's a tailgating line of
roughly 10 or more cars that it's not possible to pass and you end up
becoming part of that tailgating line.

* Ideally, instead of tailgating or falling back, it would be better to
pass the slow lead car.

"Harry K" > wrote in message
...
Situation - 2lane (1 each direction) heavily traveled highway with passing
opportunities sparse due to curves and hills. Posted 60 'flow' about 65.

***Speed limit 60 is all that matters. "Flow" doesn't apply for a Basic
Speed Law, such as California, that does not legally allow exceeding the
posted speed limit.

I set cruise 64/65 and rarely get passed or pass someone. I don't even try
to pass unless they are less than the posted. Say I catch up to someone
doing about 61 (happened again today) so I slow to that pace. Okay, you are
behind me, which do you prefer?

*** As I once learned, the accepted margin of error for speedometers was +/-
3mph. Doing 61 in a 60 zone would be within that error.

1. that I close up to a 2second distance behind the lead to allow you to,
opportunity allowing, pass both of us at once?

*** No you keep the 2 second following distance it is my problem, it is your
problem if you want to go faster and it is my problem if I expect you to get
"pushed" closer.

2. Drop back far enough that you can pass me and then the lead in separate
passes?

***You still keep your 2 second distance and when it's safe, then you pass
first. It's my problem if I wanted to pass both of you, that would be MFFY
behavior.

Yes, I will pull over if traffic backs up but there is really no point in
doing so as they will just stack up behind that lead vehicle.

***You have no obligation to turn out unless you are consistently below the
posted limit, regardless of whether speeding traffic wants to push you into
going faster or turn out.

On Friday, April 4, 2014 6:55:46 PM UTC-7, Arif Khokar wrote:
> On 04/04/2014 02:43 PM, Harry K wrote:
>
> > Situation - 2lane (1 each direction) heavily traveled highway with
>
> > passing opportunities sparse due to curves and hills. Posted 60
>
> > 'flow' about 65.
>
> >
>
> > I set cruise 64/65 and rarely get passed or pass someone.

> If it's really a lot of traffic, you really shouldn't be using cruise
> control in that situation.

??? Traffic in my lane behind the lead for mile after mile at the same speed? While not use the CC? At least then I'm not varying speed constantly like the morons who don't know how to use it.

Nothing more annoying that the drivers on manual control.

> > I don't
> > even try to pass unless they are less than the posted. Say I catch
> > up to someone doing about 61 (happened again today) so I slow to that
> > pace. Okay, you are behind me, which do you prefer?

> > 1. that I close up to a 2second distance behind the lead to allow
> > you to, opportunity allowing, pass both of us at once?

> > 2. Drop back far enough that you can pass me and then the lead in
> > separate passes?

> I prefer the second option* out of the ones you gave. The reason is
> that it's easier to pass one car individually rather than 2 or more
> cars. I've been in situations where there's a tailgating line of
> roughly 10 or more cars that it's not possible to pass and you end up
> becoming part of that tailgating line.

> * Ideally, instead of tailgating or falling back, it would be better to
> pass the slow lead car.

True that. But as long as lead is at no less than the posted it isn't worth the frustration of trying to catch a passing opportunity that only comes up every few miles and then can't be used due to on-coming traffic. On a long trip I'll work at passing, anything an hour or less doesn't save enough time to be worth the aggravation.

Harry K

On Friday, April 4, 2014 11:59:00 PM UTC-7, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
> "Harry K" > wrote in message
> ...
> Situation - 2lane (1 each direction) heavily traveled highway with passing
> opportunities sparse due to curves and hills. Posted 60 'flow' about 65.

> ***Speed limit 60 is all that matters. "Flow" doesn't apply for a Basic
> Speed Law, such as California, that does not legally allow exceeding the
> posted speed limit.

That is legalese, not applicable in real life. I haven't seen the "flow" anywhere but ABOVE the posted in my long life of driving coast/coast N/S and in every state of the union.

Even the gurus say the safest speed is "go with the flow".

> I set cruise 64/65 and rarely get passed or pass someone. I don't even try
> to pass unless they are less than the posted. Say I catch up to someone
> doing about 61 (happened again today) so I slow to that pace. Okay, you are
> behind me, which do you prefer?


> *** As I once learned, the accepted margin of error for speedometers was +/-
> 3mph. Doing 61 in a 60 zone would be within that error.

Most cops, IME, allow about a 10% variance, eg., posted 60, start writing tickets about 66. We had a State Patrol speed emphasis campaign a few years agon on the same highway I referred to. Posted in the paper was their announcement that tickets would start at 66.

> 1. that I close up to a 2second distance behind the lead to allow you to,
> opportunity allowing, pass both of us at once?

> *** No you keep the 2 second following distance it is my problem, it is your
> problem if you want to go faster and it is my problem if I expect you to get
> "pushed" closer.

I don't get anywhere near a 2 second distance normally, fall back to at least a 10 second space. Makes for a relaxed drive and a lot less tension. 2 Seconds at 60mph is too close per most gurus anyhow.

> 2. Drop back far enough that you can pass me and then the lead in separate
> passes?

> ***You still keep your 2 second distance and when it's safe, then you pass
> first. It's my problem if I wanted to pass both of you, that would be MFFY
> behavior.
>

>
> Yes, I will pull over if traffic backs up but there is really no point in
> doing so as they will just stack up behind that lead vehicle.

> ***You have no obligation to turn out unless you are consistently below the
> posted limit, regardless of whether speeding traffic wants to push you into
> going faster or turn out.

True but I don't like being tailgated in such conditions.

Oddly, it seems like every time I encounter such slower drivers it is always one that is not using CC. The one I encountered in my OP wasn't and worse was slowing down just enough to force me an others to slow going around corners that could be taken at easily at 80 to say nothing of his/her varying speed.

Harry K

In article >,
Harry K > wrote:

> > *** As I once learned, the accepted margin of error for speedometers was
> > +/-
> > 3mph. Doing 61 in a 60 zone would be within that error.
>
> Most cops, IME, allow about a 10% variance, eg., posted 60, start writing
> tickets about 66. We had a State Patrol speed emphasis campaign a few years
> agon on the same highway I referred to. Posted in the paper was their
> announcement that tickets would start at 66.

a 10% buffer would mean 4 mph at 40 mph and 8 mph at 80 mph, which is
definitely not the case. the buffer gets smaller at higher speeds.

it's usually 5-10 mph, depending on the speed limit and other factors.
where the limit is 55, it is often a 10 mph buffer, but where it's 70
or higher, it's only a 5 mph buffer and on occasion, less.

> > 1. that I close up to a 2second distance behind the lead to allow you to,
> > opportunity allowing, pass both of us at once?
>
> > *** No you keep the 2 second following distance it is my problem, it is
> > your
> > problem if you want to go faster and it is my problem if I expect you to
> > get "pushed" closer.
>
> I don't get anywhere near a 2 second distance normally, fall back to at least
> a 10 second space. Makes for a relaxed drive and a lot less tension. 2
> Seconds at 60mph is too close per most gurus anyhow.

in many areas, you can't maintain a 10 second space because one or more
cars will fill it if you even have the opportunity to try.

On 04/05/2014 11:27 AM, Harry K wrote:
> On Friday, April 4, 2014 6:55:46 PM UTC-7, Arif Khokar wrote:

>>> I set cruise 64/65 and rarely get passed or pass someone.

>> If it's really a lot of traffic, you really shouldn't be using
>> cruise control in that situation.

> ??? Traffic in my lane behind the lead for mile after mile at the
> same speed? While not use the CC?

Probably because traffic can change speed (since this isn't a limited
access road AFAICT) and you won't react to those speed changes as
readily if you're using cruise control.

> At least then I'm not varying
> speed constantly like the morons who don't know how to use it.

I'm able to maintain a relatively constant speed without the use of
cruise control without any issues.

>> * Ideally, instead of tailgating or falling back, it would be
>> better to pass the slow lead car.

> True that. But as long as lead is at no less than the posted it isn't
> worth the frustration of trying to catch a passing opportunity that
> only comes up every few miles and then can't be used due to on-coming
> traffic. On a long trip I'll work at passing, anything an hour or
> less doesn't save enough time to be worth the aggravation.

I'm glad that I don't have to drive on undivided highways on a regular
basis

On Friday, April 4, 2014 11:43:22 AM UTC-7, Harry K wrote:
> Situation - 2lane (1 each direction) heavily traveled highway with passing opportunities sparse due to curves and hills. Posted 60 'flow' about 65.
>
>
>
> I set cruise 64/65 and rarely get passed or pass someone. I don't even try to pass unless they are less than the posted. Say I catch up to someone doing about 61 (happened again today) so I slow to that pace. Okay, you are behind me, which do you prefer?
>
>
>
> 1. that I close up to a 2second distance behind the lead to allow you to, opportunity allowing, pass both of us at once?
>
>
>
> 2. Drop back far enough that you can pass me and then the lead in separate passes?
>
>
>
> Yes, I will pull over if traffic backs up but there is really no point in doing so as they will just stack up behind that lead vehicle.
>
>
>
> Harry K

"Arif Khokar" > wrote in message
news
> On 04/05/2014 11:27 AM, Harry K wrote:
>> On Friday, April 4, 2014 6:55:46 PM UTC-7, Arif Khokar wrote:
>
>>>> I set cruise 64/65 and rarely get passed or pass someone.
>
>>> If it's really a lot of traffic, you really shouldn't be using
>>> cruise control in that situation.
>
>> ??? Traffic in my lane behind the lead for mile after mile at the
>> same speed? While not use the CC?
>
> Probably because traffic can change speed (since this isn't a limited
> access road AFAICT) and you won't react to those speed changes as readily
> if you're using cruise control.
>
Brake pedal = slow down/disengage cruise control--it's instant. Traffic
increases speed again, use resume. Obviously, with multiple traffic changes
it will be better not to use cruise, but if there aren't multiple traffic
changes, why not use cruise? It's better than manual control and--in my
case--I have used it for both a constant speed and speed limiter. Speed
limit 70mph, I accelerate to 70mph and set cruise--I cruise at 70mph
constant speed unless there is a traffic situation that makes me slow down.

>> At least then I'm not varying
>> speed constantly like the morons who don't know how to use it.
>
> I'm able to maintain a relatively constant speed without the use of cruise
> control without any issues.
>
Yes, it's just as easily done but why not let cruise do the modulation of
the accelerator pedal, regardless of how small those modulations may be?

>>> * Ideally, instead of tailgating or falling back, it would be
>>> better to pass the slow lead car.
>
>> True that. But as long as lead is at no less than the posted it isn't
>> worth the frustration of trying to catch a passing opportunity that
>> only comes up every few miles and then can't be used due to on-coming
>> traffic. On a long trip I'll work at passing, anything an hour or
>> less doesn't save enough time to be worth the aggravation.
>
Supposedly, the side with the dashed line is also supposed to have a greater
viewable distance, but I would also probably not deal with passing.

> I'm glad that I don't have to drive on undivided highways on a regular
> basis

Agree--I only know of three undivided highways (specifically signed as
highway) and I rarely drive them.

On 04/07/2014 12:24 AM, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
> "Arif Khokar" > wrote in message
> news
>> On 04/05/2014 11:27 AM, Harry K wrote:

>>> ??? Traffic in my lane behind the lead for mile after mile at the
>>> same speed? While not use the CC?

>> Probably because traffic can change speed (since this isn't a limited
>> access road AFAICT) and you won't react to those speed changes as
>> readily if you're using cruise control.

> Brake pedal = slow down/disengage cruise control--it's instant.

It's not as fast as letting up on the accelerator and losing a few mph
in speed even before you move your foot to the brake pedal.

> Traffic
> increases speed again, use resume.

Or just depress the accelerator again. Having to move your foot from
where ever you keep it when using cruise control to press the brake to
disengage it and then move your hand to find the button or move a slider
to resume is more effort than letting up on the accelerator and then
pressing it again to get back up to speed.

> Obviously, with multiple traffic
> changes it will be better not to use cruise, but if there aren't
> multiple traffic changes, why not use cruise?

IMO, you're better able to adjust to conditions by modulating the
pressure you apply to the accelerator. For instance, if I see a bunch
of brake lights of vehicles light up ahead, I instinctively let up on
the accelerator to ascertain what's actually happening and lose some
speed in the process. So, instead of going my former speed, I may be
going 5 to 10 mph slower before I actually have to apply the brakes.

>> I'm able to maintain a relatively constant speed without the use of
>> cruise control without any issues.
>>
> Yes, it's just as easily done but why not let cruise do the modulation
> of the accelerator pedal, regardless of how small those modulations may be?

It's just a personal preference of mine. I may use cruise control once
every several years, if that.

>>>> * Ideally, instead of tailgating or falling back, it would be
>>>> better to pass the slow lead car.

>>> True that. But as long as lead is at no less than the posted it isn't
>>> worth the frustration of trying to catch a passing opportunity that
>>> only comes up every few miles and then can't be used due to on-coming
>>> traffic. On a long trip I'll work at passing, anything an hour or
>>> less doesn't save enough time to be worth the aggravation.

> Supposedly, the side with the dashed line is also supposed to have a
> greater viewable distance, but I would also probably not deal with passing.

Depending on the length of the passing zone, you may have to use the
"slingshot maneuver" where you fall back, and then accelerate and time
the approach such that your start your pass at the beginning of the up
coming passing zone and hope that no oncoming traffic appears before you
actually start your pass.