|
Coasting
Hello,
I have been reading up on hypermiling, a technique that employs some very common sense ways to increase mileage. But it also involves turning off the engine and coasting, something I do not think is wise, due to the loss of power steering and power brakes. I have a 2003 Accent, manual transmission. Does it do any harm to put the car in neutral and coast with the engine still running at idle? Thanks |
Re: Coasting
Steve and Janet <steveandjanet@gmail.com> wrote in news:813f8029-8ce3-424d-
9a46-7ffff1ea273a@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com: > Hello, > I have been reading up on hypermiling, a technique that employs some > very common sense ways to increase mileage. But it also involves > turning off the engine and coasting, something I do not think is wise, > due to the loss of power steering and power brakes. I have a 2003 > Accent, manual transmission. Does it do any harm to put the car in > neutral and coast with the engine still running at idle? > Thanks > It seems like I read in Car and Driver magazine, in one of the editorials or car articles a few months back, that they just mentioned in passing that they found no difference in mileage doing this. The article was about something else but related. Just fyi. Maybe because if you're foot's off the gas, no matter what the rpm says, the same amount of gas is being injected for 'idle' speed. The cylinders are just moving faster in gear because the wheels are turning faster, the engine isn't compensating by giving(wasting) more gas to keep up. But it sounds like it because engine rpm is still engine rpm, with all the associated sounds, whirrs, hums, roars, etc. regardless of how much gas is incoming. Seems logical. |
Re: Coasting
There'd be no threat of damage to the car. Most jurisdictions, however,
make it illegal to have the transmission in neutral or the clutch disengaged when crossing railroad at least in certain circumstances. At the very least, no noticeable difference in fuel economy is a plausible finding. When coasting with the car in gear, as long as the engine is turning at idle rpm, you have engine braking, but the ECM cuts all fuel to the engine (since it isn't needed). On the other hand, with the car in neutral, you don't have the engine braking, but you're using the necessary gas to keep the engine running. -- Message posted using http://www.talkaboutautos.com/group/alt.autos.hyundai/ More information at http://www.talkaboutautos.com/faq.html |
Re: Coasting
On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 10:38:34 -0500, "hyundaitech"
<notpublic@not.public.com> wrote: >There'd be no threat of damage to the car. Most jurisdictions, however, >make it illegal to have the transmission in neutral or the clutch >disengaged when crossing railroad at least in certain circumstances. > >At the very least, no noticeable difference in fuel economy is a plausible >finding. When coasting with the car in gear, as long as the engine is >turning at idle rpm, you have engine braking, but the ECM cuts all fuel to >the engine (since it isn't needed). On the other hand, with the car in >neutral, you don't have the engine braking, but you're using the necessary >gas to keep the engine running. i was going to say what hyundaitech said. I'll add this. There is a lot of "old wisdom" floating around that came from the days of carburated engines that often used more gas at idle than driving slowly. If you are coasting down a hill then you need the engin braking unless you can safely let the car accelerate down the hill for a long period of time. Short bursts won't buy you enough gas saving to matter and can be offset by brake wear. If you are city driving you will find anticipating lights and developing a smooth driving practice is most productive. For highway driving cruise control is your friend. My $.02, worth every penny you paid for it. ;-) |
Re: Coasting
I agree with what has been said in this thread thus far, but I have a
puzzling question: Why do I get better gas mileage using neutral on my 2006 Sonata V6 ATX? Here's my case and maybe something is wrong with my car, but I doubt it. Same exact stretch of road near my work has a very long (about a mile) with a mild grade. I'd guess about 3-4% or so. Nothing major. I approach the top of the incline (start of descent) at exactly 45 MPH. Keeping the car in "D", with my foot completely off the gas, I am doing 46 MPH at the bottom of the hill. Putting the car in neutral has me going 56 MPH at the end of the incline. Why? Should there really be that much engine breaking, or is this transmission drag? Eric |
Re: Coasting
On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 23:37:34 GMT, "Eric G."
<NgOrSePeAnM99@Zoptonline.Znet> wrote: >I agree with what has been said in this thread thus far, but I have a >puzzling question: Why do I get better gas mileage using neutral on my >2006 Sonata V6 ATX? > >Here's my case and maybe something is wrong with my car, but I doubt it. > >Same exact stretch of road near my work has a very long (about a mile) with >a mild grade. I'd guess about 3-4% or so. Nothing major. > >I approach the top of the incline (start of descent) at exactly 45 MPH. >Keeping the car in "D", with my foot completely off the gas, I am doing 46 >MPH at the bottom of the hill. Putting the car in neutral has me going 56 >MPH at the end of the incline. > >Why? Should there really be that much engine breaking, or is this >transmission drag? Probably normal torque converter drag. There's another kind of "coasting" that definitely saves fuel. Simply getting off the gas a little earlier when making stops can save fuel and brake pads. I see a lot of people doing 75mph get on their brakes without first coasting down to a reasonable speed. I don't have any figures, but that must be very wasteful. - Bob |
Re: Coasting
"Eric G." <NgOrSePeAnM99@Zoptonline.Znet> wrote in message news:Xns9ACEC7660205CXz124HiiUdfEEE6@140.99.99.130 ... >I agree with what has been said in this thread thus far, but I have a > puzzling question: Why do I get better gas mileage using neutral on my > 2006 Sonata V6 ATX? > > Here's my case and maybe something is wrong with my car, but I doubt it. > > Same exact stretch of road near my work has a very long (about a mile) > with > a mild grade. I'd guess about 3-4% or so. Nothing major. > > I approach the top of the incline (start of descent) at exactly 45 MPH. > Keeping the car in "D", with my foot completely off the gas, I am doing 46 > MPH at the bottom of the hill. Putting the car in neutral has me going 56 > MPH at the end of the incline. > > Why? Should there really be that much engine breaking, or is this > transmission drag? > > Eric > > Sure, it all depends on drivetrain design. My Buick has little drag, but my former Mercedes diesel would probably be doing 30 at the end of that hill. As for coasting, you can get better mileage as long as you can use the gained speed and not just waste it by putting on the brakes. |
Re: Coasting
Bob Adkins <bob.adkins@gmail.com> wrote in
news:pbpl64tuai3t3q0gs2hp2a2q8uroeflvmo@4ax.com: > On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 23:37:34 GMT, "Eric G." > <NgOrSePeAnM99@Zoptonline.Znet> wrote: > >>Why? Should there really be that much engine breaking, or is this >>transmission drag? > > Probably normal torque converter drag. > > There's another kind of "coasting" that definitely saves fuel. Simply > getting off the gas a little earlier when making stops can save fuel > and brake pads. I see a lot of people doing 75mph get on their brakes > without first coasting down to a reasonable speed. I don't have any > figures, but that must be very wasteful. > - > > Bob Yeah, Bob, that's what I figured too. I just think this car could get so much better mileage overall with much less of that drag. And your 100% right about the braking. Actually, it all goes to the overall smoothness of the ride. The less g's your pull, either positive or negative, from accelerating or braking, will improve your mileage. The lateral g's in a turn don't effect mileage as much, but if you are scrubbing off speed it will. Eric |
Re: Coasting
"Edwin Pawlowski" <esp@snet.net> wrote in
news:IYBak.10855$cW3.672@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com: > > "Eric G." <NgOrSePeAnM99@Zoptonline.Znet> wrote in message > news:Xns9ACEC7660205CXz124HiiUdfEEE6@140.99.99.130 ... > >> Why? Should there really be that much engine breaking, or is this >> transmission drag? >> >> Eric >> >> > > Sure, it all depends on drivetrain design. My Buick has little drag, > but my former Mercedes diesel would probably be doing 30 at the end of > that hill. As for coasting, you can get better mileage as long as you > can use the gained speed and not just waste it by putting on the > brakes. That's the truth. Unfortunately, at the end of this hill is a light. It's green for me about 70% of the time. When that's the case, I can usually get about 4 miles of coasting while still maintaing the speed limit. Anyway, even longer story short, but by practicing my "smoothness", and coasting where it is beneficial and SAFE, over the last 6 months I have managed to increase my mileage by an average of just over 2 MPG. I am now at 24.6 MPG (6 month average) versus 22.5 MPG. And my driving is 80% city with a V6 Sonata. Eric |
Re: Coasting
On Jul 1, 4:27 pm, nothermark <notherm...@not.here> wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 10:38:34 -0500, "hyundaitech" > For highway driving cruise control is > your friend. > Unless there are hills to climb. CC will try and maintain the selected speed whereas if you hold a steady pedal pressure up hill and let the speed drop, you'll save a few drop of the precious fluid. I practice hypermileage techniques with both of our stick shift cars and I'm seeing about a 10% mileage improvement. I think most of the savings come from accelerating like there is a egg between my foot and the gas pedal followed by coasting and higher tire pressure. L. |
Re: Coasting
Eric G. wrote:
> Yeah, Bob, that's what I figured too. I just think this car could get so > much better mileage overall with much less of that drag. > > And your 100% right about the braking. Actually, it all goes to the > overall smoothness of the ride. The less g's your pull, either positive or > negative, from accelerating or braking, will improve your mileage. The > lateral g's in a turn don't effect mileage as much, but if you are > scrubbing off speed it will. This is true with respect to stopping, but not with respect to acceleration. The is an optimal acceleration curve that will maximize fuel economy. Most cars get optimum economy in the 40-50 MPH range. Driving too long at speeds less than that will cause a lose in overall economy. So, you generaly want to accelerate smoothly to at least 40 MPH. You don't want to floor it to be sure, but taking two miles to accelerate to 55 MPH will take more fuel than a more reasonable acceleration that gets the car into the "sweet zone" sooner and keeps it there longer. Matt |
Re: Coasting
Matt Whiting wrote:
<snip> > This is true with respect to stopping, but not with respect to > acceleration. The is an optimal acceleration curve that will maximize > fuel economy. Most cars get optimum economy in the 40-50 MPH range. > Driving too long at speeds less than that will cause a lose in overall > economy. So, you generaly want to accelerate smoothly to at least 40 > MPH. You don't want to floor it to be sure, but taking two miles to > accelerate to 55 MPH will take more fuel than a more reasonable > acceleration that gets the car into the "sweet zone" sooner and keeps it > there longer. Interesting! I'd like to know *why*. Is it from being in a higher gear? And a related question I've wondered about for some time: I often get stuck behind people who accelerate so *slowly* I want to scream. I'm guessing these people are subscribing to the "drive like you have an egg between your foot and the gas pedal" school of driving. I'm sure this was reasonable advice back in the day when stomping the accelerator pumped large amounts of gas down the carb throat, but how much difference does it make with FI cars? Sure, it's going to take a little more gas to accelerate at a reasonable rate than just gathering inertia, but enough to make an appreciable difference in MPG? My peeve is that such drivers, IMHO, contribute to traffic congestion by leaving the "backed up" cars behind them to sit a traffic lights they would have "made" otherwise, etc. Which doesn't do anything for *their* gas milage. Please note I'm not talking about peeling rubber or "jackrabbit" starts, just no-nonsense, "get 'er done" starts. -- PB "I suspect you're an arrogant little pissant who grew up in the Red Bull generation." - CJW |
Re: Coasting
Plague Boy wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote: > <snip> >> This is true with respect to stopping, but not with respect to >> acceleration. The is an optimal acceleration curve that will maximize >> fuel economy. Most cars get optimum economy in the 40-50 MPH range. >> Driving too long at speeds less than that will cause a lose in overall >> economy. So, you generaly want to accelerate smoothly to at least 40 >> MPH. You don't want to floor it to be sure, but taking two miles to >> accelerate to 55 MPH will take more fuel than a more reasonable >> acceleration that gets the car into the "sweet zone" sooner and keeps >> it there longer. > > Interesting! I'd like to know *why*. Is it from being in a higher gear? Yes. |
Re: Coasting
On Jul 2, 10:04 pm, Plague Boy <plague_...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > And a related question I've wondered about for some time: > I often get stuck behind people who accelerate so *slowly* I want > to scream. I'm guessing these people are subscribing to the > "drive like you have an egg between your foot and the gas pedal" > school of driving. Too bad. You can swear and pound on the steering wheel all you want but you don't own the road. > > I'm sure this was reasonable advice back in the day when > stomping the accelerator pumped large amounts of gas down the > carb throat, but how much difference does it make with FI cars? Most tests say 4-5%, some quite a bit higher. Combine that with other gas saving measure and it could amount to over 30% according to the Edmund's test. > > Sure, it's going to take a little more gas to accelerate at a > reasonable rate than just gathering inertia, but enough to make > an appreciable difference in MPG? Yes. > > My peeve is that such drivers, IMHO, contribute to traffic > congestion by leaving the "backed up" cars behind them to sit a > traffic lights they would have "made" otherwise, etc. Which > doesn't do anything for *their* gas milage. Your comment is complete speculation unless you know how the lights are timed. Someone somewhere down the line is not going to make the light no matter what the conditions.Sorry you're annoyed with people that don't drive like 'you' think they should drive. Take a deep breath and try and calm down, your attitude could lead to road rage with all its dire consequences. L. > |
Re: Coasting
Curlyque wrote:
your attitude could lead to road rage > with all its dire consequences. > > L. > No question about the road rage. My Brother in law, a state trooper, said that out of all the incidents of road rage he's dealt with, the driver that got the ticket said the same things. The person in front was blocking traffic, and, or driving too slow in the left lane. The slow drivers comment: He doesn't own the road. The unfortunate thing is, slow drivers don't get it either, they think everyone should follow their lead, but they are the ones causing the irritation. If you want to drive slow be courteous and allow others to get by, and don't drive in the left lane. If you want to drive fast, be patient, NOT aggressive, and pass on the LEFT. Clay |
Re: Coasting
On Jul 3, 10:08 am, frijoli <crab...@dud.net> wrote:
> Curlyque wrote: > > your attitude could lead to road rage > > > with all its dire consequences. > > > L. > > No question about the road rage. My Brother in law, a state trooper, > said that out of all the incidents of road rage he's dealt with, the > driver that got the ticket said the same things. > The person in front was blocking traffic, and, or driving too slow in > the left lane. The slow drivers comment: He doesn't own the road. > > The unfortunate thing is, slow drivers don't get it either, they think > everyone should follow their lead, but they are the ones causing the > irritation. Those aren't my feelings, but I do feel that the less aggresive driver should have the right of way, not the other way around, especially since the topic is saving resources. It's just the way it plays out. No matter how slow one goes, there is always someone slower. No matter how fast one goes there is always someone who wants to drive faster. Each driving situation calls for a separate evaluation and action. JMHO L. |
Re: Coasting
Curlyque wrote:
> On Jul 3, 10:08 am, frijoli <crab...@dud.net> wrote: >> Curlyque wrote: >> >> your attitude could lead to road rage >> >>> with all its dire consequences. >>> L. >> No question about the road rage. My Brother in law, a state trooper, >> said that out of all the incidents of road rage he's dealt with, the >> driver that got the ticket said the same things. >> The person in front was blocking traffic, and, or driving too slow in >> the left lane. The slow drivers comment: He doesn't own the road. >> >> The unfortunate thing is, slow drivers don't get it either, they think >> everyone should follow their lead, but they are the ones causing the >> irritation. > > Those aren't my feelings, but I do feel that the less aggresive driver > should have the right of way, not the other way around, especially > since the topic is saving resources. It's just the way it plays out. > No matter how slow one goes, there is always someone slower. No matter > how fast one goes there is always someone who wants to drive faster. > Each driving situation calls for a separate evaluation and action. > > JMHO > > L. What it boils down to is that you consider someone driving faster than you "aggressive". I say I won't ride your ass, ever, if your in the right hand lane. If you are in the left lane I expect you to move over at your first opportunity, when you see a faster driver behind you. It's called driving etiquette. This is the way drivers around the world behave. Everyone is welcome to save fuel all they want, just don't force me to do it. Clay |
Re: Coasting
"Curlyque" <sunsideserve@gmail.com> wrote in message news:4d0ede6d-3f89-4bcb-a82e-dcc2aa978332@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... > > Those aren't my feelings, but I do feel that the less aggresive driver > should have the right of way, not the other way around, especially > since the topic is saving resources. How does being the faster of two drivers equate to being more aggresive? Being more urgent in life has nothing to do with aggression. > It's just the way it plays out. > No matter how slow one goes, there is always someone slower. No matter > how fast one goes there is always someone who wants to drive faster. > Each driving situation calls for a separate evaluation and action. > Of course, but as was stated, as often as genuinely aggressive drivers pose problems, so do those who sputter along with the attitude that this is fast enough, and everyone else around me should be satisfied at this pace. There is a reason that most states have laws about obstructing the flow of traffic. To quote a phrase, "especially since the topic is saving resources". -- -Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net |
Re: Coasting
On Jul 4, 7:15 am, "Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREM...@alltel.net> wrote:
> "Curlyque" <sunsidese...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:4d0ede6d-3f89-4bcb-a82e-dcc2aa978332@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... > > > > > Those aren't my feelings, but I do feel that the less aggresive driver > > should have the right of way, not the other way around, especially > > since the topic is saving resources. > > How does being the faster of two drivers equate to being more aggresive? > Being more urgent in life has nothing to do with aggression. When someone exceeds the speed limit they are agressive and breaking the law. I won't yield an inch to that kind of driver. > > > It's just the way it plays out. > > No matter how slow one goes, there is always someone slower. No matter > > how fast one goes there is always someone who wants to drive faster. > > Each driving situation calls for a separate evaluation and action. > > Of course, but as was stated, as often as genuinely aggressive drivers pose > problems, so do those who sputter along with the attitude that this is fast > enough, and everyone else around me should be satisfied at this pace. There > is a reason that most states have laws about obstructing the flow of > traffic. To quote a phrase, "especially since the topic is saving > resources". The minimum speed limit on an interstate, and most other roads with a speed limit of 55 and over, is 45. Consider it your lucky day if I decide to go the speed limit not the minimum. I am within the law and I'll decide how fast I want to go. Not everyone is urgently moving from one place to another. What are you going to do when gas is 15 a gallon and the roads are full of bicycles and scooters, lay on the horn, cuss them out, run them over? > > -- > > -Mike- > mmarlowREM...@alltel.net |
Re: Coasting
Curlyque wrote:
> On Jul 4, 7:15 am, "Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREM...@alltel.net> wrote: >> "Curlyque" <sunsidese...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:4d0ede6d-3f89-4bcb-a82e-dcc2aa978332@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >>> Those aren't my feelings, but I do feel that the less aggresive driver >>> should have the right of way, not the other way around, especially >>> since the topic is saving resources. >> How does being the faster of two drivers equate to being more aggresive? >> Being more urgent in life has nothing to do with aggression. > > When someone exceeds the speed limit they are agressive and breaking > the law. I won't yield an inch to that kind of driver. > > > > >>> It's just the way it plays out. >>> No matter how slow one goes, there is always someone slower. No matter >>> how fast one goes there is always someone who wants to drive faster. >>> Each driving situation calls for a separate evaluation and action. >> Of course, but as was stated, as often as genuinely aggressive drivers pose >> problems, so do those who sputter along with the attitude that this is fast >> enough, and everyone else around me should be satisfied at this pace. There >> is a reason that most states have laws about obstructing the flow of >> traffic. To quote a phrase, "especially since the topic is saving >> resources". > > The minimum speed limit on an interstate, and most other roads with a > speed limit of 55 and over, is 45. Consider it your lucky day if I > decide to go the speed limit not the minimum. I am within the law and > I'll decide how fast I want to go. Not everyone is urgently moving > from one place to another. What are you going to do when gas is 15 a > gallon and the roads are full of bicycles and scooters, lay on the > horn, cuss them out, run them over? No one is saying that you can't go 45. Since the minimum speed limit is 45, as you say, and since I am sure that you are aware that the left lane is for passing only, we should not expect that you will be slowing down the normal flow of traffic in the left lane. Perhaps you are also aware that bicycles and scooters, under a minimum size, are barred from the interstates as well so you raise a moot point about what people may do when encountering them on the interstate. By the way I admire your attitude that one should consider it their lucky day that you decide to go the speed limit. Just as the fast driver may be a hazard to the general motoring public so might the slow one, as the real problem in interstate driving is not the speed that the motorists are going but the differential in speeds among those motorist. That is why, if you were to watch auto racing, you would see few wrecks (other than those caused by equipment failure) that are not the result of a slower driver being hit from behind. > > > >> -- >> >> -Mike- >> mmarlowREM...@alltel.net > |
Re: Coasting
On Jul 4, 12:31 pm, jp103 <jpoinier11052...@nospamcomcast.net> wrote:
> Curlyque wrote: > > On Jul 4, 7:15 am, "Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREM...@alltel.net> wrote: > >> "Curlyque" <sunsidese...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:4d0ede6d-3f89-4bcb-a82e-dcc2aa978332@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... > > >>> Those aren't my feelings, but I do feel that the less aggresive driver > >>> should have the right of way, not the other way around, especially > >>> since the topic is saving resources. > >> How does being the faster of two drivers equate to being more aggresive? > >> Being more urgent in life has nothing to do with aggression. > > > When someone exceeds the speed limit they are agressive and breaking > > the law. I won't yield an inch to that kind of driver. > > >>> It's just the way it plays out. > >>> No matter how slow one goes, there is always someone slower. No matter > >>> how fast one goes there is always someone who wants to drive faster. > >>> Each driving situation calls for a separate evaluation and action. > >> Of course, but as was stated, as often as genuinely aggressive drivers pose > >> problems, so do those who sputter along with the attitude that this is fast > >> enough, and everyone else around me should be satisfied at this pace. There > >> is a reason that most states have laws about obstructing the flow of > >> traffic. To quote a phrase, "especially since the topic is saving > >> resources". > > > The minimum speed limit on an interstate, and most other roads with a > > speed limit of 55 and over, is 45. Consider it your lucky day if I > > decide to go the speed limit not the minimum. I am within the law and > > I'll decide how fast I want to go. Not everyone is urgently moving > > from one place to another. What are you going to do when gas is 15 a > > gallon and the roads are full of bicycles and scooters, lay on the > > horn, cuss them out, run them over? > > No one is saying that you can't go 45. Since the minimum speed limit is > 45, as you say, and since I am sure that you are aware that the left > lane is for passing only, we should not expect that you will be slowing > down the normal flow of traffic in the left lane. Perhaps you are also > aware that bicycles and scooters, under a minimum size, are barred from > the interstates as well so you raise a moot point about what people may > do when encountering them on the interstate. > By the way I admire your attitude that one should consider it their > lucky day that you decide to go the speed limit. Just as the fast > driver may be a hazard to the general motoring public so might the slow > one, as the real problem in interstate driving is not the speed that the > motorists are going but the differential in speeds among those motorist. > That is why, if you were to watch auto racing, you would see few > wrecks (other than those caused by equipment failure) that are not the > result of a slower driver being hit from behind. I wasn't speaking exclusively about interstate driving. What is your version of driving etiquette if I'm doing the speed limit, or slightly under, on a two lane road? I have calculated that I get the best mileage at 53/54 with the car I drive most often. If you push me to go faster you're costing me money. What about driving on city streets which will likely soon be carrying more scooter and bicycle traffic? Where do your rights end and mine begin? And yes, I completely agree that 'going with the flow' on a busy, multi-lane limited access road, is the safest way to drive. L. |
Re: Coasting
Curlyque wrote:
> On Jul 4, 12:31 pm, jp103 <jpoinier11052...@nospamcomcast.net> wrote: >> Curlyque wrote: >>> On Jul 4, 7:15 am, "Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREM...@alltel.net> wrote: >>>> "Curlyque" <sunsidese...@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>> news:4d0ede6d-3f89-4bcb-a82e-dcc2aa978332@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... >>>>> Those aren't my feelings, but I do feel that the less aggresive driver >>>>> should have the right of way, not the other way around, especially >>>>> since the topic is saving resources. >>>> How does being the faster of two drivers equate to being more aggresive? >>>> Being more urgent in life has nothing to do with aggression. >>> When someone exceeds the speed limit they are agressive and breaking >>> the law. I won't yield an inch to that kind of driver. >>>>> It's just the way it plays out. >>>>> No matter how slow one goes, there is always someone slower. No matter >>>>> how fast one goes there is always someone who wants to drive faster. >>>>> Each driving situation calls for a separate evaluation and action. >>>> Of course, but as was stated, as often as genuinely aggressive drivers pose >>>> problems, so do those who sputter along with the attitude that this is fast >>>> enough, and everyone else around me should be satisfied at this pace. There >>>> is a reason that most states have laws about obstructing the flow of >>>> traffic. To quote a phrase, "especially since the topic is saving >>>> resources". >>> The minimum speed limit on an interstate, and most other roads with a >>> speed limit of 55 and over, is 45. Consider it your lucky day if I >>> decide to go the speed limit not the minimum. I am within the law and >>> I'll decide how fast I want to go. Not everyone is urgently moving >>> from one place to another. What are you going to do when gas is 15 a >>> gallon and the roads are full of bicycles and scooters, lay on the >>> horn, cuss them out, run them over? >> No one is saying that you can't go 45. Since the minimum speed limit is >> 45, as you say, and since I am sure that you are aware that the left >> lane is for passing only, we should not expect that you will be slowing >> down the normal flow of traffic in the left lane. Perhaps you are also >> aware that bicycles and scooters, under a minimum size, are barred from >> the interstates as well so you raise a moot point about what people may >> do when encountering them on the interstate. >> By the way I admire your attitude that one should consider it their >> lucky day that you decide to go the speed limit. Just as the fast >> driver may be a hazard to the general motoring public so might the slow >> one, as the real problem in interstate driving is not the speed that the >> motorists are going but the differential in speeds among those motorist. >> That is why, if you were to watch auto racing, you would see few >> wrecks (other than those caused by equipment failure) that are not the >> result of a slower driver being hit from behind. > > I wasn't speaking exclusively about interstate driving. What is your > version of driving etiquette if I'm doing the speed limit, or slightly > under, on a two lane road? I have calculated that I get the best > mileage at 53/54 with the car I drive most often. If you push me to go > faster you're costing me money. What about driving on city streets > which will likely soon be carrying more scooter and bicycle traffic? > Where do your rights end and mine begin? > > And yes, I completely agree that 'going with the flow' on a busy, > multi-lane limited access road, is the safest way to drive. > > > L. I have no problem if you are going the speed limit on a two lane road nor do I have a problem if you are going the speed limit while passing on the interstate. I do have a problem, if you are cruising in the left hand lane at, or below, the speed limit and not passing, or do not move over to allow others to pass because there is a slower moving vehicle in the distance (being a relative term but generally taking more than a minute or two to overtake). As far as bicycles (scooters should be able to keep up with the flow of most urban traffic) go the law states that a cyclist has the same rights as a motorist. Being a cyclist myself and realizing that I may have the same rights as a motorist there are certain streets in my city that, in my estimation, are dangerous to exercise those rights. When there are curb cuts in the sidewalk I will opt to ride on the sidewalk rather than try to ride up a hill on a street where traffic is heavy and and the lanes are narrow. I would do this not out of etiquette but more importantly out of a need for survival and common sense. Just because you have the right does not mean that you should insist on that right to the detriment of your well-being. After having several fellow cyclist get hit by vehicles I realize that the 2000#+ always win whether they are right or not. |
Re: Coasting
jp103 <jpoinier110522mi@nospamcomcast.net> scribbled:
> I do have a problem, if you are cruising in the > left hand lane at, or below, the speed limit and not passing, or do > not move over to allow others to pass because there is a slower moving > vehicle in the distance (being a relative term but generally taking > more than a minute or two to overtake). This, in Illinois, is illegal (with some reasonable exceptions) and can get you a ticket if there are cars behind you trying to pass. Anyone driving faster than me is a maniac; anyone driving slower than me is an idiot. ;-) |
Re: Coasting
"Curlyque" <sunsideserve@gmail.com> wrote in message news:dbe61f78-2a72-4e17-a9e2-2c96890c8ed3@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 4, 7:15 am, "Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREM...@alltel.net> wrote: >> "Curlyque" <sunsidese...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:4d0ede6d-3f89-4bcb-a82e-dcc2aa978332@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > Those aren't my feelings, but I do feel that the less aggresive driver >> > should have the right of way, not the other way around, especially >> > since the topic is saving resources. >> >> How does being the faster of two drivers equate to being more aggresive? >> Being more urgent in life has nothing to do with aggression. > > When someone exceeds the speed limit they are agressive and breaking > the law. I won't yield an inch to that kind of driver. > > There you go again. No one ever said anything about exceeding the speed limit. Quite the opposite, it's easy to find oneself behind pokey people who feel no one needs to go any faster than they are, or that no one needs to get off a light any faster than they choose to. Speeding alone does not make aggressive driving. Those who hold up lines of traffice while driving under the speed limit are just as aggressive as those who act aggressively at higher speeds. > > >> >> > It's just the way it plays out. >> > No matter how slow one goes, there is always someone slower. No matter >> > how fast one goes there is always someone who wants to drive faster. >> > Each driving situation calls for a separate evaluation and action. >> >> Of course, but as was stated, as often as genuinely aggressive drivers >> pose >> problems, so do those who sputter along with the attitude that this is >> fast >> enough, and everyone else around me should be satisfied at this pace. >> There >> is a reason that most states have laws about obstructing the flow of >> traffic. To quote a phrase, "especially since the topic is saving >> resources". > > The minimum speed limit on an interstate, and most other roads with a > speed limit of 55 and over, is 45. Consider it your lucky day if I > decide to go the speed limit not the minimum. I am within the law and > I'll decide how fast I want to go. Not everyone is urgently moving > from one place to another. What are you going to do when gas is 15 a > gallon and the roads are full of bicycles and scooters, lay on the > horn, cuss them out, run them over? > > You are a fool. -- -Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net > >> >> -- >> >> -Mike- >> mmarlowREM...@alltel.net > |
Re: Coasting
On Jul 4, 9:02 pm, "Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREM...@alltel.net> wrote:
> "Curlyque" <sunsidese...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:dbe61f78-2a72-4e17-a9e2-2c96890c8ed3@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Jul 4, 7:15 am, "Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREM...@alltel.net> wrote: > >> "Curlyque" <sunsidese...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:4d0ede6d-3f89-4bcb-a82e-dcc2aa978332@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... > > >> > Those aren't my feelings, but I do feel that the less aggresive driver > >> > should have the right of way, not the other way around, especially > >> > since the topic is saving resources. > > >> How does being the faster of two drivers equate to being more aggresive? > >> Being more urgent in life has nothing to do with aggression. > > > When someone exceeds the speed limit they are agressive and breaking > > the law. I won't yield an inch to that kind of driver. > > There you go again. No one ever said anything about exceeding the speed > limit. Quite the opposite, it's easy to find oneself behind pokey people > who feel no one needs to go any faster than they are, or that no one needs > to get off a light any faster than they choose to. > > Speeding alone does not make aggressive driving. Those who hold up lines of > traffice while driving under the speed limit are just as aggressive as those > who act aggressively at higher speeds. > > > > > > >> > It's just the way it plays out. > >> > No matter how slow one goes, there is always someone slower. No matter > >> > how fast one goes there is always someone who wants to drive faster. > >> > Each driving situation calls for a separate evaluation and action. > > >> Of course, but as was stated, as often as genuinely aggressive drivers > >> pose > >> problems, so do those who sputter along with the attitude that this is > >> fast > >> enough, and everyone else around me should be satisfied at this pace. > >> There > >> is a reason that most states have laws about obstructing the flow of > >> traffic. To quote a phrase, "especially since the topic is saving > >> resources". > > > The minimum speed limit on an interstate, and most other roads with a > > speed limit of 55 and over, is 45. Consider it your lucky day if I > > decide to go the speed limit not the minimum. I am within the law and > > I'll decide how fast I want to go. Not everyone is urgently moving > > from one place to another. What are you going to do when gas is 15 a > > gallon and the roads are full of bicycles and scooters, lay on the > > horn, cuss them out, run them over? > > You are a fool. -- Oh man, not one of those types. They seem to be everywhere these days.......know it alls without a life. OK, your right and I'm wrong....whatever L. |
Re: Coasting
"Curlyque" <sunsideserve@gmail.com> wrote in message news:d5198a52-85d1-4e1b-8be0-3a6d9bc8a9e9@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... >> >> You are a fool. > -- > Oh man, not one of those types. They seem to be everywhere these > days.......know it alls without a life. You know what they say - if everyone around you is telling you the same thing... Not a know it all in life. In fact I'd suggest that's how you are presenting yourself in this dialog. You have consistently misrepresented the comments of every other posted in this thread in order to position their comments as some extreme statement that they never made. You then went on to proclaim how you would force your way on everyone else, regardless of the propriety of that action, and wrapped it all up in a wrapper of extreme alarmist rhetoric. You've pretty well proven yourself incapable of reasonable conversation. > > OK, your right and I'm wrong....whatever > No - I'm simply another point of view. That appears to be something you have difficulty with. -- -Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:35 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands