Enforced speed reductions

[wxfree]

In this topic, I don't mean speed limits enforced by law, but actually forcing people to go slow.  I recently was going west on I-10 in west Texas, speed limit 80 with a construction speed of 65.  The zone was miles long, with multiple active work zones.  Only one lane is open.  Cars with emergency lights were stationed along the road and would pull out ahead of a line of traffic (a long way ahead) when it was approaching an active zone.  The car would go at 15 mph, forcing the line of traffic to move very slowly.  Between the active zones we'd go however fast the slow truck at the head of the line could get up to before the next speed enforcement car.  There's no way drivers would willingly go that slowly because of a speed limit sign, so these low-speed escorts were the best way to accomplish the reduction.  The car would drive across the median to escort traffic through the zone going the other way.  I had never seen that before.

[Big John]

Was that a rolling roadblock? Used when there is a need for a short-term full closure of the roadway.

[webny99]

During winter snow storms, plow trucks commonly use an extension to plow two lanes at once. It effectively "blocks" the freeway (at least when it's only two lanes each way), but I never thought of it as a means of intentionally forcing traffic to slow down; it's just a more efficient, less resource intensive and arguably safer way to do their job, and blocking traffic is just a side effect of that. Plus when they're out plowing there's a good chance conditions are poor, so slowing down is often warranted and you'd rather be driving behind the plow anyways.

I've never seen anything like described in the OP. It sounds effective but frustrating.

[jeffandnicole]

Big John's thought is what I would think - traffic slowdowns to allow several minutes of unimpeded work, such as installing or removing an overhead sign or beam, or moving equipment around.

Some states, at night, will routinely close entire highways to allow for overhead sign or bridge installations or removals.  Other states will routinely just close the highway for 20 minutes or so, and utilize these slow roadblocks to accomplish the task.

[1995hoo]

In the early 1980s Maryland infamously used rolling roadblocks to enforce the 55-mph speed limit when the feds threatened their highway funding, claiming that too few people were obeying the 55-mph limit.

[wxfree]

It sounds effective but frustrating.

It certainly was.

[kphoger]

Very similar to a regular old pilot car, except that it sounds like there was no real reason to need a pilot car.

[DriverDave]

Such a thing seems illegal. It would require vehicles traveling in formation blocking every lane including the passing lane. Seems dangerous, causing unnecessary backlog just to hard limit those who drive 10-20 over the speed limit. What if an ambulance needs to get through? I've never personally seen that type of "rolling roadblock".

[jeffandnicole]

Such a thing seems illegal. It would require vehicles traveling in formation blocking every lane including the passing lane. Seems dangerous, causing unnecessary backlog just to hard limit those who drive 10-20 over the speed limit. What if an ambulance needs to get through? I've never personally seen that type of "rolling roadblock".

Usually just one or two cops can control the entire road...they do some sort of swerve or stagger lanes.  The cars in front get the message, and everyone else is stuck behind them.  Compared to a full stop, the traffic approaching slows down but don't really need to stop - it's pretty much like one encounters approaching an everyday traffic jam.  Ambulances communicate with 911 dispatchers, who communicate with police.  But if they're doing overhead work that requires a slowdown, there's not much that can be done when the work is taking place, unless the ambulance goes a different direction. Still better than a full shutdown when the ambulance would have to go a different direction, and encounter more traffic.

[jamess]

Ive only ever seen this in California, and its not infrequent

https://youtu.be/L9JyB73pg2Y?si=9NK32ljWjqBCIM8J

Sometimes its too slow vehicles due to bad weather (grapevine in particular), other times its because there is a crash or something ahead and they want to slow people down before they reach stopped cars

[mgk920]

Ive only ever seen this in California, and its not infrequent

https://youtu.be/L9JyB73pg2Y?si=9NK32ljWjqBCIM8J

Sometimes its too slow vehicles due to bad weather (grapevine in particular), other times its because there is a crash or something ahead and they want to slow people down before they reach stopped cars

I have heard of the CHP running pilot cruisers to lead packs of regular vehicles though thick fog banks.

Mike

[US 89]

I've seen this many times in Utah. Usually they do it if there's been an accident ahead and they need a short closure in order to move all the involved vehicles out of the middle of the freeway.

[DriverDave]

I've seen cops do the zigzag motion across the lanes when there was a flood in the road up ahead.

[1995hoo]

Such a thing seems illegal. It would require vehicles traveling in formation blocking every lane including the passing lane. Seems dangerous, causing unnecessary backlog just to hard limit those who drive 10-20 over the speed limit. What if an ambulance needs to get through? I've never personally seen that type of "rolling roadblock".

Under what body of law? Any time I see a post that says something "seems illegal" or "is illegal" or "should be illegal," it makes me wary because of how vague that sort of blanket statement is. Something that is illegal in one state may be legal in another. Here's a rolling roadblock from Maryland, for example, that was related to the issue of the feds' complaining about people ignoring the stupid 55-mph speed limit. Obviously, if an ambulance had approached this sort of thing the cops would allow the ambulance past.

[bzakharin]

Ive only ever seen this in California, and its not infrequent

https://youtu.be/L9JyB73pg2Y?si=9NK32ljWjqBCIM8J

Sometimes its too slow vehicles due to bad weather (grapevine in particular), other times its because there is a crash or something ahead and they want to slow people down before they reach stopped cars

They do this all the time on the Atlantic City Expressway during the morning rush hour (there isn't much rush hour traffic on the ACE). It's especially infuriating because there is otherwise little to no traffic, and at best a non-specific "road work ahead" sign at a point where no exits remain between the sign and the work zone.

[jeffandnicole]

Such a thing seems illegal. It would require vehicles traveling in formation blocking every lane including the passing lane. Seems dangerous, causing unnecessary backlog just to hard limit those who drive 10-20 over the speed limit. What if an ambulance needs to get through? I've never personally seen that type of "rolling roadblock".

Under what body of law? Any time I see a post that says something "seems illegal" or "is illegal" or "should be illegal," it makes me wary because of how vague that sort of blanket statement is. Something that is illegal in one state may be legal in another. Here's a rolling roadblock from Maryland, for example, that was related to the issue of the feds' complaining about people ignoring the stupid 55-mph speed limit. Obviously, if an ambulance had approached this sort of thing the cops would allow the ambulance past.

Look how nicely spaced out the cars are behind the pace cars. Anytime I've seen pacing occur, cars are tight in on each other.

[sprjus4]

Such a thing seems illegal. It would require vehicles traveling in formation blocking every lane including the passing lane. Seems dangerous, causing unnecessary backlog just to hard limit those who drive 10-20 over the speed limit. What if an ambulance needs to get through? I've never personally seen that type of "rolling roadblock".

Under what body of law? Any time I see a post that says something "seems illegal" or "is illegal" or "should be illegal," it makes me wary because of how vague that sort of blanket statement is. Something that is illegal in one state may be legal in another. Here's a rolling roadblock from Maryland, for example, that was related to the issue of the feds' complaining about people ignoring the stupid 55-mph speed limit. Obviously, if an ambulance had approached this sort of thing the cops would allow the ambulance past.

Left lane is for passing only?

Keep right except to pass?

[jeffandnicole]

Left lane is for passing only?

Keep right except to pass?

What about the speed limit law?

[kphoger]

Left lane is for passing only?

Keep right except to pass?

What about the speed limit law?

Exactly.  The left lane is not the "go as fast as you want" lane.  Passing someone does not allow a driver the freedom to exceed the speed limit (except for perhaps in a handful of states' vehicle codes, and only while overtaking on a two-way road).

[DriverDave]

Still doesn't mean you can just stay in the far left lane. Regardless of how fast you're going. It's even worse if they're making it so you can't even get around them on the right if necessary. And more so if they're doing this at 55 mph the whole time.

[1995hoo]

Show me where there was a specific Maryland law making it illegal for the cops to have done that. Would it have been exceptionally annoying to be stuck behind that? Sure. Would that have made it illegal for the cops to do it? Highly unlikely, especially back then when the feds were being arseholes about the stupid 55-mph national speed limit.

[DriverDave]

Enforcing speed limits doesn't nullify the left lane laws. They could have done it in only 2-3 of the 4 lanes. Most drivers aren't going to pass a marked police car at more than 5 over the limit, so it would have accomplished the same thing while leaving the passing lane open. Maybe it wasn't the law then but most states now have laws prohibiting this kind of physical obstruction of traffic. Something like that could also have been done at 65-70 mph just to prevent people who would excessively speed, but at exactly the speed limit in this manner is unreasonable.

[1995hoo]

You're missing the point (and I think you're doing so deliberately). As I already noted, the feds told them they were going to lose federal highway funding because too low a percentage of drivers were obeying the 55-mph speed limit. They had to come up with some way to force more people to obey the 55-mph law (and yes, everyone knew it was utterly absurd for the feds to deem drivers' forced compliance to be acceptable). So your argument about doing this at 65–70 mph is completely irrelevant—under the circumstances, that was not considered a viable option for reasons that should be eminently clear. While I agree with you that the national 55-mph law, and tying highway funding to how states enforced that law, was unreasonable, that's not a good enough argument.

I have no idea how old you are, so maybe you don't remember the days when no speed limit anywhere in the US could be higher than 55. It was utterly absurd, but what was more absurd was the feds' stubborn insistence on acting like 55 was somehow sacred.

[sprjus4]

Left lane is for passing only?

Keep right except to pass?

What about the speed limit law?

The police weren't exceeding the speed limit - they did not violate the speed limit law. But, assuming left lane restrictions were in place even back then (although I feel like they were not - but IF they were), the police are not using the left lane to actively pass, therefore would be in violation of that law.

[Rothman]

Left lane is for passing only?

Keep right except to pass?

What about the speed limit law?

The police weren't exceeding the speed limit - they did not violate the speed limit law. But, assuming left lane restrictions were in place even back then (although I feel like they were not - but IF they were), the police are not using the left lane to actively pass, therefore would be in violation of that law.

Let me know when they get their ticket for doing so.