Proposed nationwide 65mph truck limit

[sprjus4]

Overall a rare situation.

You clearly haven't driven I-64 between Richmond and Newport News.

Hahaha this happens everywhere dude! Everyone says the same shit: "my area is terrible! Clearly you haven't driven in [poster's hometown]!"

Every freeway, all over the world, has the occasional passing truck holding up traffic. It's just how things work. Trucks are slower than passenger vehicles. Period. They have the right to pass. Period. Sure, some take longer than others, but that doesn't mean they're not allowed to do it. Sure, it comes across as rude, but consider that perhaps both vehicles are limited to 60? And who knows how long both of those trucks will be on a particular stretch of road. The following truck eventually has to give.

That is true, but my own observations are it happens more on I-64 than most other highways (although I haven't lived there since 2007). Norfolk/Hampton Roads is the busiest container port on the East Coast and the only interstate connecting it to its largest markets to the north and northwest. (US 58 and US 460 are good four lane highways, but have stoplights and less direct.) I-64 is also still two lanes between Williamsburg and Richmond's near eastern suburbs with AADT's of about 60K or more in each direction on its least busy stretch with a much higher percentage of truck traffic than typical highways. Add the rolling hills affecting trucks passing each other as I-64 goes in and out of the shallow valleys of the Peninsula and you have a nightmare formula, especially on the end of tourist weekends. I used to regularly use US 460 to drive to DC even though it normally took almost 30 minutes longer just to avoid I-64 frustration.

I'd consider US-460 being the better alternative... I've considered US-58, but because of the way I-95 arcs northeast north of Emporia, it makes that alternative indirect.

VA-35 is also a nice alternative from Courtland to I-95. It's 40 miles of 2-lane road, but it's all 55 mph with no stop lights. US-460 though is still faster in the end, but it's the second best.

New Jersey/New York and Savannah ports are actually the biggest on the East Coast, but Port of Virginia is the 3rd, and does generate a significant amount of truck traffic, as you mentioned.

US-58 is the main route to I-95 and I-85 south, and I-64 is to the north, west, and southwest (to the I-81 corridor).

[skluth]

Overall a rare situation.

You clearly haven't driven I-64 between Richmond and Newport News.

Hahaha this happens everywhere dude! Everyone says the same shit: "my area is terrible! Clearly you haven't driven in [poster's hometown]!"

Every freeway, all over the world, has the occasional passing truck holding up traffic. It's just how things work. Trucks are slower than passenger vehicles. Period. They have the right to pass. Period. Sure, some take longer than others, but that doesn't mean they're not allowed to do it. Sure, it comes across as rude, but consider that perhaps both vehicles are limited to 60? And who knows how long both of those trucks will be on a particular stretch of road. The following truck eventually has to give.

That is true, but my own observations are it happens more on I-64 than most other highways (although I haven't lived there since 2007). Norfolk/Hampton Roads is the busiest container port on the East Coast and the only interstate connecting it to its largest markets to the north and northwest. (US 58 and US 460 are good four lane highways, but have stoplights and less direct.) I-64 is also still two lanes between Williamsburg and Richmond's near eastern suburbs with AADT's of about 60K or more in each direction on its least busy stretch with a much higher percentage of truck traffic than typical highways. Add the rolling hills affecting trucks passing each other as I-64 goes in and out of the shallow valleys of the Peninsula and you have a nightmare formula, especially on the end of tourist weekends. I used to regularly use US 460 to drive to DC even though it normally took almost 30 minutes longer just to avoid I-64 frustration.

I'd consider US-460 being the better alternative... I've considered US-58, but because of the way I-95 arcs northeast north of Emporia, it makes that alternative indirect.

VA-35 is also a nice alternative from Courtland to I-95. It's 40 miles of 2-lane road, but it's all 55 mph with no stop lights. US-460 though is still faster in the end, but it's the second best.

New Jersey/New York and Savannah ports are actually the biggest on the East Coast, but Port of Virginia is the 3rd, and does generate a significant amount of truck traffic, as you mentioned.

US-58 is the main route to I-95 and I-85 south, and I-64 is to the north, west, and southwest (to the I-81 corridor).

Completely agree on US 460 being the better alternative. (I worked for the fed govt so I was regularly driving to DC from my home in Portsmouth. I also often used US 301/17 on my return trips from DC to avoid the evening jams at Quantico Creek when the HOV lanes ended there.) I only included US 58 for completeness and agree it's not practical for any traffic head anything north or NW of Richmond. I also preferred US 17/64 over US 58/I-85 to Raleigh; a bit longer but significantly less traffic and IMO more scenic.

I had thought Norfolk was the largest container port. My mistake. It's what the local news frequently said when I was there, with near constant expansion to stay ahead of Savannah and Charleston. Regardless, the funneling of a large majority of that container traffic to I-64 creates regular truck traffic jams between Newport News and Richmond as you still experience. It desperately needs to be upgraded to at least six lanes like US 95 north of Richmond.

[sprjus4]

I also preferred US 17/64 over US 58/I-85 to Raleigh; a bit longer but significantly less traffic and IMO more scenic.

I'd agree. I tend to use that route when I have time, but if I'm in a hurry, I'll use US-58.

The US-64 freeway is a lot nicer then the I-95 stretch between Emporia and Rocky Mount. Less traffic, and overall nicer design.

Interestingly enough, that's the route for Interstate 87 which will run between Raleigh and Norfolk. It'll still be longer than US-58, but it will bring US-17 up to interstate standards and 70 mph speed limits, so travel times will end up being similar to US-58, and will provide an interstate-grade alternative to I-95 South and Raleigh over US-58. Something I'd certainly use, especially over US-58. The only reason I still use that road is because there's no other route that has similar travel times.

I-87 will likely sway more passenger vehicle traffic than truck traffic due to mileage, however the goal is to open up new businesses and warehouses on the corridor, and in turn would attract truck traffic. I-40 had this success story when it opened to Wilmington in 1990.  The population has since tripled there, and the hope is that similar results will come to Northeastern NC, especially south of the state line & Elizabeth City.

Also, US-17 alone is already a trucking corridor (smaller than US-58, but nonetheless has truck traffic)  so the upgrade will benefit them. It also could sway traffic from heading inland to I-95 then back down onto I-87 & US-17.

The corridor would also bypass the bottleneck that I-95 can be, especially during heavy travel times. Something I'd go for without question.

I had thought Norfolk was the largest container port. My mistake. It's what the local news frequently said when I was there, with near constant expansion to stay ahead of Savannah and Charleston. Regardless, the funneling of a large majority of that container traffic to I-64 creates regular truck traffic jams between Newport News and Richmond as you still experience. It desperately needs to be upgraded to at least six lanes like US 95 north of Richmond.

Agreed. In 2017, the highway opened up to 6-lanes up to Fort Eustis, and back in May it opened up to 6-lanes to VA-199 / Busch Gardens area. Currently, it's under construction to extend that 6-lanes to north of Lightfoot, opening in 2021. A 5 mile stretch of I-64 east of I-295 is also being expanded to 6-lanes, opening at the end of the year. They are still pushing for funding to expand the rest of the corridor to 6-lanes but currently it's unfunded.

The HRBT is being expanded to 8-lanes (2 GP + 2 HO/T lanes each way) in a $3.8 billion project starting next year, and the High Rise Bridge corridor is having one HO/T lane added each way currently under construction.

[skluth]

Agreed. In 2017, the highway opened up to 6-lanes up to Fort Eustis, and back in May it opened up to 6-lanes to VA-199 / Busch Gardens area. Currently, it's under construction to extend that 6-lanes to north of Lightfoot, opening in 2021. A 5 mile stretch of I-64 east of I-295 is also being expanded to 6-lanes, opening at the end of the year. They are still pushing for funding to expand the rest of the corridor to 6-lanes but currently it's unfunded.

The HRBT is being expanded to 8-lanes (2 GP + 2 HO/T lanes each way) in a $3.8 billion project starting next year, and the High Rise Bridge corridor is having one HO/T lane added each way currently under construction.

Good news. The more they widen I-64 and keep a truck-free lane inside, the better for everyone. It would definitely help maneuver around truck traffic and especially if they legalize that stupid 65 mph limit nationwide. I live in the Coachella Valley now, and that 65 limit would be a disaster for traffic headed east on I-10 to Arizona. That stretch of highway already has far too many accidents for a rural four-lane interstate.

I remember the HRBT regularly backing up to I-564 when I worked at NOB. It made my daily Midtown crossing more tolerable mentally (except that month after Isabel), and I was glad they finally got around to making the Midtown four lanes after I left. I like the idea of widening the HRBT much better than the proposed Third Crossing which I think would have been an eyesore along with much worse environmentally. The High Rise widening surprises me, but that need also goes back at least 15 years. Just surprised VA is actually doing something about it.

[sprjus4]

Good news. The more they widen I-64 and keep a truck-free lane inside, the better for everyone.

Agreed, and that is correct. Signage is well posted on the newly widened portions that prohibit commercial vehicles from the left lane - yet already I've encountered trucks that ignore that - as you find on most 6-8 lane highways that prohibit trucks in those lanes.

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.1664355,-76.5466523,3a,37.5y,167.82h,82.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szMWSviv5Dc4u9vL1rNQ_eQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1

The 6-lane sections are so much nicer and flow much smoother than the 4-lane sections. When Segment 3 between the two VA-199 interchanges is completed in 2021, 21 miles of I-64 would have been widened from 4-lanes to 6-lanes between 2015 and 2021. The only disadvantage is the trees have all been removed from the median to do this, but it's a sacrifice that's completely worth it.

I remember the HRBT regularly backing up to I-564 when I worked at NOB.

Still that way - and hopefully 8-lanes will significantly relieve that - even if they are HO/T lanes (HOV free, single occupancy pay toll). The reversible HOV lanes between I-264 and I-564 were converted last year to HO/T as well - and have been successful supposedly as most of the traffic is toll-paying SOV vehicles - traffic that could not use it in the past.

I was glad they finally got around to making the Midtown four lanes after I left.

With a toll, but still a good project overall. The whole tolling the Downtown and Midtown Tunnels in 2014 did not / does not still sit well with many people.

I like the idea of widening the HRBT much better than the proposed Third Crossing which I think would have been an eyesore along with much worse environmentally.

Well, the HRBT is just one project, the end goal is indeed to build the Third Crossing between I-564 and I-664, along with the Craney Island Connector between the Third Crossing and VA-164, plus widening I-664 to 8-lanes.

Actually, the first segment of the Third Crossing was completed back in December 2017. A $169 mile 3-mile freeway - the Intermodal Connector - providing a direct link I-564 to Norfolk International Terminal's North Gate, along with Gate 6 of Naval Station Norfolk with no stop lights or cross roads. It was mostly a project to get port trucks directly to the interstate and off of Hampton Blvd, along with better access to that side of the base, though in the long run it's the route of the Third Crossing, and is designed to accommodate that eventual routing, and a future extension.

You can see the freeway partially completed on Google Maps - https://www.google.com/maps/@36.9290689,-76.3074421,3574m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e1

This is the ultimate build with the Third Crossing - http://www.i564intermodal.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Project-Land-Display.pdf

The High Rise widening surprises me, but that need also goes back at least 15 years.

The I-64 corridor between I-464 and Bowers Hill is being expanded by a $409 million project that is adding 1 HO/T lane in each direction (creating a total of 6-lanes), and constructing a new, fixed-span 100 ft clearance (the current is a lift-span 65 ft clearance) High Rise Bridge. When completed, the new High Rise Bridge will carry traffic going towards Va Beach, and the existing bridge will carry traffic heading to Bowers Hill. In a decade or so, another project will demolish the existing High Rise Bridge, built a parallel fixed-span second bridge, and widen the corridor to 8-lanes, with that 4th lane each way's management (HO/T or GP) to be determined at a later date.

Just surprised VA is actually doing something about it.

The gas tax was increased in the Hampton Roads district in 2013 with the creation of the HRTAC (Hampton Roads Transportation Accountability Commission) which brings in around $200 - $300 million annually. The creation of this program has enabled funding to get these long-overdue projects started. The program has made the I-64 Peninsula Widening, I-264 / I-64 Interchange Expansion, I-64 High Rise Bridge Corridor, HRBT Expansion, and other projects possible. In the future, it's expected to fund 8-laning the High Rise Corridor, the Third Crossing, the Bowers Hill Interchange expansion / replacement, and upgrading US-58 / US-13 / US-460 between Bowers Hill and Suffolk to interstate standards. Other, currently unidentified massive projects may be added to this list in the future if determined appropriate, including newer projects like I-87 to North Carolina, etc.

The rest of the state has not seen the benefits Hampton Roads has, at least until now. The gas tax was increased July 1st along the I-81 corridor which will bring in $151 million annually which will fund $2.2 billion worth of improvements of I-81. It's not a full widening, though key urban areas, along with Christiansburg to Roanoke will be expanded to 6-lanes. The other improvements include interchange improvements, curve realignments, acceleration / deceleration lane extensions, sight improvements, VMS, and other safety features enhanced on the corridor.

A gas tax increase is coming in 2021 to the rest of the state that will bring in money towards improving I-64 and I-95 as well, and hopefully that will help accelerate the widening of I-64 to 6-lanes to Richmond, along with widening I-95 to 8-lanes at least north of Fredericksburg now that the HO/T lane extension down to Fredericksburg will be done by 2022. That may also help fund the construction of Interstate 73 between North Carolina and Roanoke, but that may be wishing to much. That 65 mile freeway has been waiting for funding since the 90s and just recently they made the decision to not try to build it all at once, but rather in phases. The first 6-mile phase is having an EIS completed, and that may be funded eventually, extending from the Martinsville Bypass to North Carolina.

[webny99]

It also proves time and time again that drivers these days don't know how to properly look ahead and slow down...instead they jam their brakes at the last second.

In my case, I know how to look ahead and slow down, but once in a while actively choose not to do it. If I am in the left lane and feel that I will be passed on the right if I start slowing down, I'll choose to maintain my speed as long as possible despite knowing it may not be sustainable.

[sprjus4]

It also proves time and time again that drivers these days don't know how to properly look ahead and slow down...instead they jam their brakes at the last second.

In my case, I know how to look ahead and slow down, but once in a while actively choose not to do it. If I am in the left lane and feel that I will be passed on the right if I start slowing down, I'll choose to maintain my speed as long as possible despite knowing it may not be sustainable.

The point is it's when one person lightly taps their brakes to quickly slow from 75 - 80 mph to 60.5 mph, then the people behind hit it harder and harder each car the effect ripples to. Eventually, with so much traffic, it ends up going 25-30 cars back and everybody is down to 30 - 40 mph.

There's been instances where everybody in the left lane is doing 80 mph and everyone has to slam their brake down to 30 mph. Hard to look ahead when you're in a full flow of traffic and everybody is doing one speed.

[webny99]

The point is it's when one person lightly taps their brakes to quickly slow from 75 - 80 mph to 60.5 mph,

Ignoring that such a large change in speed at such a rate is not possible with a "light tap"...

then the people behind hit it harder and harder each car the effect ripples to. Eventually, with so much traffic, it ends up going 25-30 cars back and everybody is down to 30 - 40 mph.
There's been instances where everybody in the left lane is doing 80 mph and everyone has to slam their brake down to 30 mph. Hard to look ahead when you're in a full flow of traffic and everybody is doing one speed.

The facts are that trucks are usually relatively decent about waiting for a gap to pass. Sometimes, they get aggressive, but they don't usually interfere with the flow of the passing cars by forcing their way in at 20-30 mph slower than everyone else. They have some degree of patience, or they wouldn't be doing what they're doing.
Secondly, 30 to 40 mph? It takes more than trucks passing to get an entire freeway full of traffic down to that speed. I grumble about rolling backlogs moving at 60 mph on the Thruway, and I don't think I've ever slowed down to 30 mph just because trucks were passing.

[hotdogPi]

Secondly, 30 to 40 mph? It takes more than trucks passing to get an entire freeway full of traffic down to that speed. I grumble about rolling backlogs moving at 60 mph on the Thruway, and I don't think I've ever slowed down to 30 mph just because trucks were passing.

A single left lane hog can do it. It causes a chain reaction.

[webny99]

Secondly, 30 to 40 mph? It takes more than trucks passing to get an entire freeway full of traffic down to that speed. I grumble about rolling backlogs moving at 60 mph on the Thruway, and I don't think I've ever slowed down to 30 mph just because trucks were passing.

A single left lane hog can do it. It causes a chain reaction.

It's possible, but it also takes bad drivers (cramming the brakes excessively, as froggie mentioned) behind the left lane hog.
I would surmise the chain would have to be several miles long before travel speeds were actually that low for a sustained period.

[sprjus4]

Secondly, 30 to 40 mph? It takes more than trucks passing to get an entire freeway full of traffic down to that speed. I grumble about rolling backlogs moving at 60 mph on the Thruway, and I don't think I've ever slowed down to 30 mph just because trucks were passing.

A single left lane hog can do it. It causes a chain reaction.

It's possible, but it also takes bad drivers (cramming the brakes excessively, as froggie mentioned) behind the left lane hog.
I would surmise the chain would have to be several miles long before travel speeds were actually that low for a sustained period.

It's I-64. I expect no less.

That wasn't per se due to the truck, but a lot of stupid drivers rather. And this chain did go on for miles, the interstate was -crowded-.

[1995hoo]

I think comments about how one of the truck drivers should slow down so they both get back in the right lane tend to overlook one of the issues with trucks that explains some of how truck drivers operate. Obviously trucks don't accelerate nearly as well as cars, to the point where most truckers really hate to do something that will cause them to lose momentum and possibly wind up slowing even more (especially on hilly or mountainous roads)–to some degree, it's possible that doing that might wind up slowing the rest of the traffic even more.



A thought semi-related to trucks going up hills: I'm curious whether the rest of you folks will drive in the "climbing lane," assuming you don't have a slow truck ahead of you in said lane. That is, suppose you're on a two-lane road and a second lane appears on the right as you climb a mountain. Or suppose you're on an Interstate with two lanes in your direction and a third lane appears on the right as you climb a mountain. Assuming you don't need to pass a truck, do you use the climbing lane as though it's a normal right lane?

I do, especially if it's a two-lane road and there's someone behind me who wants to go faster than I do. But when I use that lane, I often feel like I'm the only non-trucker willing to do so. I don't view it as the "slow truck lane" the way some people do.

[froggie]

^ Could be a regional thing.  Up here in Northern New England, drivers will typically shift over to the climbing lane.  By law, they're usually supposed to given Keep Right Except To Pass.

[yand]

I think comments about how one of the truck drivers should slow down so they both get back in the right lane tend to overlook one of the issues with trucks that explains some of how truck drivers operate. Obviously trucks don't accelerate nearly as well as cars, to the point where most truckers really hate to do something that will cause them to lose momentum and possibly wind up slowing even more (especially on hilly or mountainous roads)–to some degree, it's possible that doing that might wind up slowing the rest of the traffic even more.



A thought semi-related to trucks going up hills: I'm curious whether the rest of you folks will drive in the "climbing lane," assuming you don't have a slow truck ahead of you in said lane. That is, suppose you're on a two-lane road and a second lane appears on the right as you climb a mountain. Or suppose you're on an Interstate with two lanes in your direction and a third lane appears on the right as you climb a mountain. Assuming you don't need to pass a truck, do you use the climbing lane as though it's a normal right lane?

I do, especially if it's a two-lane road and there's someone behind me who wants to go faster than I do. But when I use that lane, I often feel like I'm the only non-trucker willing to do so. I don't view it as the "slow truck lane" the way some people do.

The climbing lane is for vehicles that cannot maintain the speed limit. A car travelling at the maximum legal speed (my car) is not "slow". I generally don't stay in lanes that are ending in less than a minute. I'll use the climbing lane if there's no other passing lane.

[sprjus4]

I do, especially if it's a two-lane road and there's someone behind me who wants to go faster than I do. But when I use that lane, I often feel like I'm the only non-trucker willing to do so. I don't view it as the "slow truck lane" the way some people do.

I'll usually do it when there's no trucks in that lane. It doesn't matter if it's a "climbing" lane, it's still a 3-lane roadway, and unless I'm passing, I tend to stay right. Sometimes though I'll stay in the middle lane, or the previous right lane before the climbing lane formed.

A stretch of I-69 in Indiana was just completed as an upgrade to the old SR-37 arterial, and oddly enough through a grade, INDOT constructed a left lane on the new interstate that forms as a "passing lane" and the right lane automatically becomes the "climbing lane". I thought this was a weird layout - usually a right lane forms as the "slow lane" and the two other lanes continue on their path.

[US 89]

A thought semi-related to trucks going up hills: I'm curious whether the rest of you folks will drive in the "climbing lane," assuming you don't have a slow truck ahead of you in said lane. That is, suppose you're on a two-lane road and a second lane appears on the right as you climb a mountain. Or suppose you're on an Interstate with two lanes in your direction and a third lane appears on the right as you climb a mountain. Assuming you don't need to pass a truck, do you use the climbing lane as though it's a normal right lane?

I do, especially if it's a two-lane road and there's someone behind me who wants to go faster than I do. But when I use that lane, I often feel like I'm the only non-trucker willing to do so. I don't view it as the "slow truck lane" the way some people do.

If it's a two-lane road, I always move over to the right lane because a climbing lane presents a rare opportunity for faster traffic to pass without oncoming traffic. On an interstate or four-lane road, oncoming traffic isn't an issue, and I will typically stay in the middle lane. There's also the risk of going around a curve and encountering a very slow truck that wasn't visible before, which is more likely on interstates and four-lane roads since those typically have higher truck traffic counts.

[jakeroot]

The climbing lane is for vehicles that cannot maintain the speed limit. A car travelling at the maximum legal speed (my car) is not "slow". I generally don't stay in lanes that are ending in less than a minute. I'll use the climbing lane if there's no other passing lane.

At least in WA, the climbing lane is not for any specific vehicle. It was built with trucks in mind, but can (and legally shall) be used by all vehicles, given that the law requires drivers to use the right-most lane except for various exceptions (turning left, emergency vehicles, etc).

[froggie]

^ And not just in Washington State either.  I'd argue that it's the rule whereas Massachusetts (where yand is from) is the exception.  Massachusetts is the only place I know of offhand that has "climbing lanes" that are not general purpose lanes.

[Rothman]

^ And not just in Washington State either.  I'd argue that it's the rule whereas Massachusetts (where yand is from) is the exception.  Massachusetts is the only place I know of offhand that has "climbing lanes" that are not general purpose lanes.

Huh.  Where are these types of climbing lanes in MA?  I can only think of places where they are general purpose (e.g., MA 116 on the south side of the Holyoke Range).

[jeffandnicole]

It also proves time and time again that drivers these days don't know how to properly look ahead and slow down...instead they jam their brakes at the last second.

In my case, I know how to look ahead and slow down, but once in a while actively choose not to do it. If I am in the left lane and feel that I will be passed on the right if I start slowing down, I'll choose to maintain my speed as long as possible despite knowing it may not be sustainable.

What's more important...being 20 feet behind where you would've been, or a $500 brake job when you prematurely reduce the life of your brakes by slamming on the brakes more often?

[froggie]

^ And not just in Washington State either.  I'd argue that it's the rule whereas Massachusetts (where yand is from) is the exception.  Massachusetts is the only place I know of offhand that has "climbing lanes" that are not general purpose lanes.

Huh.  Where are these types of climbing lanes in MA?  I can only think of places where they are general purpose (e.g., MA 116 on the south side of the Holyoke Range).

MA 2 west out of Greenfield is the first that comes to mind.  Also MA 10 west from the river towards 91.

[webny99]

A thought semi-related to trucks going up hills: I'm curious whether the rest of you folks will drive in the "climbing lane," assuming you don't have a slow truck ahead of you in said lane. That is, suppose you're on a two-lane road and a second lane appears on the right as you climb a mountain. Or suppose you're on an Interstate with two lanes in your direction and a third lane appears on the right as you climb a mountain. Assuming you don't need to pass a truck, do you use the climbing lane as though it's a normal right lane?

I do, especially if it's a two-lane road and there's someone behind me who wants to go faster than I do. But when I use that lane, I often feel like I'm the only non-trucker willing to do so. I don't view it as the "slow truck lane" the way some people do.

On two lane roads, Ontario starts the dashes for the new lane in the middle of the road, so you have to actively move to the left/ "passing" lane, instead of ending up there by default. I really like this practice, and wish it would be done more often.

Unless I'm actively passing, I will always move to the right if there's anyone in sight behind me. It seems like passing on the right is more common than passing on the left, as trucks and large vehicles are usually the only other ones to move right. It is a bit counter-intuitive, but I guess this means I move right largely in case I need to pass the slow guy on the left, not the other way around.

[webny99]

It also proves time and time again that drivers these days don't know how to properly look ahead and slow down...instead they jam their brakes at the last second.

In my case, I know how to look ahead and slow down, but once in a while actively choose not to do it. If I am in the left lane and feel that I will be passed on the right if I start slowing down, I'll choose to maintain my speed as long as possible despite knowing it may not be sustainable.

What's more important...being 20 feet behind where you would've been, or a $500 brake job when you prematurely reduce the life of your brakes by slamming on the brakes more often?

Which is more important, or which would I rather? 
I believe that passing on the right should occur as little as possible, so I'm not going to let you in if you just passed me on the right. I was on the left for a reason. People cutting in at the last second is what causes the unsustainability and hard braking in the first place.

[jeffandnicole]

It also proves time and time again that drivers these days don't know how to properly look ahead and slow down...instead they jam their brakes at the last second.

In my case, I know how to look ahead and slow down, but once in a while actively choose not to do it. If I am in the left lane and feel that I will be passed on the right if I start slowing down, I'll choose to maintain my speed as long as possible despite knowing it may not be sustainable.

What's more important...being 20 feet behind where you would've been, or a $500 brake job when you prematurely reduce the life of your brakes by slamming on the brakes more often?

Which is more important, or which would I rather? 
I believe that passing on the right should occur as little as possible, so I'm not going to let you in if you just passed me on the right. I was on the left for a reason. People cutting in at the last second is what causes the unsustainability and hard braking in the first place.

Huh...you literally said you purposely speed up. You are personally causing your own hard braking because you don't want to let someone else in.

[webny99]

It also proves time and time again that drivers these days don't know how to properly look ahead and slow down...instead they jam their brakes at the last second.

In my case, I know how to look ahead and slow down, but once in a while actively choose not to do it. If I am in the left lane and feel that I will be passed on the right if I start slowing down, I'll choose to maintain my speed as long as possible despite knowing it may not be sustainable.

What's more important...being 20 feet behind where you would've been, or a $500 brake job when you prematurely reduce the life of your brakes by slamming on the brakes more often?

Which is more important, or which would I rather? 
I believe that passing on the right should occur as little as possible, so I'm not going to let you in if you just passed me on the right. I was on the left for a reason. People cutting in at the last second is what causes the unsustainability and hard braking in the first place.

Huh...you literally said you purposely speed up. You are personally causing your own hard braking because you don't want to let someone else in.

No, if people weren't cutting in downstream, and if everyone kept passing at a reasonable differential, no one would have to brake at all. I know that isn't likely, but I'm still not going to allow others to get past and add to the problem developing right behind the truck or other obstacle.