It's a bad driver for adhering to the speed limits?

I'm having a hard time understanding how that makes sense. I understand that matching the flow of traffic is important, but more important than the speed limit? They're there for a reason.

If the speed limit is 30km/h and everyone is driving in 50km/h, you're saying you'll opt for driving at 50km/h?

Besides, if there is multiple lanes, you take the right lane and follow the speed limit. The ones who don't want to adhere to the speed limit, have the left lane(s).

And in the case of it only being one lane, you can literally decide the flow of traffic by adhering to the speed limit, and everyone behind you need to follow it, and once it stabilizes, that's now the flow of traffic, problem solved?

(Just as a disclaimer, I do sometimes drive above the limits myself, but limited only to the highways, never on road with a limit below 120km/h)

> I understand that matching the flow of traffic is important, but more important than the speed limit?

Yes absolutely. Speed limits are cooked up in a room somewhere and do not reflect the actual conditions of the road. The real world situation you find yourself in when on the road is too dynamic to suggest a number on a sign should be the ultimate authority

It's very understood that when it's raining or snowing or foggy you should slow down because you drive to the conditions of the road because that's safest.

If everyone around you is speeding then that's also a condition of the road, which you need to adapt to

> problem solved?

The consensus from the folks writing laws appears to be that the problem is not in fact solved in that case. There are laws which apply independent of your speed that require you to give way when more than X number of cars are behind you constrained by your speed (X varies by jurisdiction).

Of course the response to this is usually "but if I am going the speed limit that other law cannot apply." Very much like the laws saying you must keep right unless passing someone. Everyone seems to have their own opinion on which laws they will follow, and which they can ignore.

I’ve heard a lot of debate about this point here in Australia. In the state of NSW, people on their learner permit are restricted to driving no more than 90km/h (55 miles per hour). Arguably, this is safer because learner drivers haven’t learned to control their cars well yet.

Here in Vic (the next state over), people think that law is stupid because it’s apparently less safe having everyone on a freeway driving at different speeds. It makes changing lanes much more difficult and dangerous. Here learner drivers are expected and encouraged to match the speed of traffic (obviously obeying speed signs too).

I suspect vic is right on this one. It probably is more dangerous having different drivers driving at different speeds. At least, more dangerous to human drivers. But what do you expect Google to do about it? Make their entire fleet break the road rules? Their licence to drive their cars on the roads at all is on a trial basis. They’re being closely watched by everyone. Even if it’s potentially unsafe for other drivers who are speeding, sticking to the letter of the law is really the only choice they have here. Maybe in time all traffic will flow at the posted speed. And officials will finally feel comfortable raising the speed limit to match the speed everyone actually comfortably drives at on the roads.

driving 50 in a 30 is a 66% increase, not a 10%-25% increase like gp was suggesting. When speeding is more extreme it probably crosses a threshold where it's safer to drive the speed limit than to drive with the traffic. But when the difference is 10%-25% (which is accurate IME in the US) then you only have to experience it a few times to know it's less safe to drive the speed limit.

Flow of Traffic vs Speed Limit Dangers

Many believe the myth that as long as we’re going with the flow of traffic, we’re not doing anything wrong. It makes sense– everyone else is going the same speed, so why shouldn’t you? There’s no way a cop could pull you over if you’re just going with the speed of traffic. Wrong.

If you argue that you were just driving with the flow of traffic, then you are essentially admitting to speeding. Other people breaking the law does not justify you breaking the law.

So in following the law vs being safe you say “follow the law and make the roads more dangerous” because… why?

> Many believe the myth

Do they? Almost without exception the argument for going with the flow of traffic is that it is safer, not that it is the most legally defensible.

Here in Texas I'd love for more people to stubbornly obey the speed limit to slow down the flow of traffic.

Having just returned from Texas, I have to say your problems in that regard are entirely self-inflicted. And frankly, probably by design. You have wide open freeways with ample space in every lane, absolutely inviting people to cruise at high speed. Want to dial it back? Make the lanes narrower. The vast majority of drivers choose their speed based on comfort, not what the sign says. That won't change, so the strategy for how you slow down traffic has to.

Uh that's just not true and I would not trust any driver who says this.

If its not true then why do many cars with self-driving build it in as a feature to allow breaking the speed limit (up to a limit, in my car it still won't go above 15mph above the limit) in order to more closely match the flow of traffic.

I think theres a bit of nuance. If the flow of traffic was all being crazy lunatics then yes I'd say so. But I would feel safer without other cars flying past me/around me because I decide to go 70mph when everyone else around you is going 80-85.

I speed on the freeway too, I just don't believe it's "safer". The margin between the traffic speed and the speed limit is just not generally large enough to be a hazard, and driving at a higher speed is just more risky and potentially lethal in every way.