> it's wrong specifically because it negatively effects other drivers on the road.
It is surely wrong if the person is traveling below the lower speed limit (be it specified explicitly or legally in the absence of the lower speed limit markers). Otherwise, it is just other people being impatient, and their reactions -- such as abruptly swerving around the driver or making a lot of distracting noise -- also cause the unsafe traffic condition.
Note carefully my point, as it ties to my first post: Both actors involved are at fault. Both actors involved are assured they are right. Both actors exhibit negative, antisocial, and unsafe behavior. Neither is an angel; neither is "better".
Traveling slowly^ in the left lane both causes congestion and creates a situation where passing on the right is likely to occur. Both of these dramatically increase the likelyhood of an accident. The slow left-lane driver is at fault for not following the otherwise accepted conventions of the road.
Laws and legal speed limits have nothing to do with it. (however: in many areas the person traveling at slow 'regular' speed in the left lane would be breaking the law. In many areas the left lane is explicitly for people traveling faster than the speed limit (read: passing)).
^where slowly is defined as relative to the rest of traffic.
Not so at all. The person traveling slowly enough to break the otherwise smooth flow of traffic is creating a danger exponentially greater than the one created by a honking horn. If they're drunk or severely fatigued (as opposed to merely distracted) then the problem is even worse, and the need for corrective cues from surrounding drivers is even greater.
Contrary to what you say, the signal provided by the honking horn - while certainly negative - is actually pro-social and pro-safety, in that it's prompting an anti-social and dangerous actor to change his behavior.
Obviously, if this corrective behavior extends to aggressive tail-gating, screaming and yelling, brandishing firearms, or any other objectively dangerous act that makes the honker a part of the problem, then yes, they're both in the wrong. Once the honker's response escalates to actual rage, then he is - almost by definition - more dangerous than the trigger.
However, if the necessary negative feedback is provided with a reasonable measure of restraint (i.e. one that's likely to reduce, and not exacerbate the larger problem) then it's a good thing for everyone. Indeed, the willingness to assert yourself for the sake of safety in situations where others are distracted to the point of becoming general impediments is something that distinguished good drivers from bad.
And yes, promoting good flow is synonymous with promoting safety. There is an inverse relationship between the quality of flow and the likelihood of a collision.
I agree with you. However, our opinions on efficient traffic flow are irrelevant for two reasons.
First, the only rule of the road generally recognized, followed or not, is the letter of the law. What some random Internet guy thinks should also be a rule of the road, even if he is 100% right, does not matter. As someone else mentioned, that is politics.
Second, the key point I have been trying to make in this scenario is that honking your horn (or whatever reaction) is a reflection of your narcissism, your self-absorption. You feel entitled to attempt to control somebody else in order to get your way (even if you rationalize your way to be "for the good of others around me"). Sometimes that control is okay.
The entire thread regards angry reactions. We are angry when something happens that is out of our control, out of our perfect little plan for the world. We are angry because it should go our way.
Now I have a choice. I can get bent out of shape over your highly disrespectful statement (you could have expressed that in a much more civilized manner), I can try to elaborate, or I can ignore you and move on with my day.
Firstly, the statement "the only rule of the road generally recognized, followed or not, is the letter of the law." genuinely does concern me.
Secondly, I feel that anyone who seriously suggests that signaling your alarm to other drivers in unsafe situations is a display of narcissism is not actually interested in an intelligent conversation, and is probably a troll.
It is surely wrong if the person is traveling below the lower speed limit (be it specified explicitly or legally in the absence of the lower speed limit markers). Otherwise, it is just other people being impatient, and their reactions -- such as abruptly swerving around the driver or making a lot of distracting noise -- also cause the unsafe traffic condition.
Note carefully my point, as it ties to my first post: Both actors involved are at fault. Both actors involved are assured they are right. Both actors exhibit negative, antisocial, and unsafe behavior. Neither is an angel; neither is "better".