Proposed nationwide 65mph truck limit

[jakeroot]

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.

If there's something downstream that is going to require some braking, it's probably best to use all available lane space, in both lanes, and forgo any sort of KRETP rules. At that point, just maximize available capacity and use all the lanes that the engineers provided.

I'm not sure what the problem is, with people going around you and cutting back in. They're using a lane that you're refusing to use. That's your problem, not theirs. Fact is, if we all stayed in one lane, backups would be enormous. I understand the rubber-band braking effect; this is why I tend to downshift instead of using my brakes. But it's not something that a single driver can actively avoid or solve.

[vdeane]

They cause traffic to slow because there isn't a gap for them to merge into when they get to the vehicle everyone is passing, so people have to slow down to let them in.  You'll have a truck on the right doing 64, a truck on the left doing 66, but you're doing 50 because people are slowing down to let in people passing on the right.  It happens ALL THE TIME on the Thruway.

Zipper merge works great when everyone is on the same page and working together to make it happen, but not when it's only an excuse to cut in line.

[sprjus4]

I'm not sure what the problem is, with people going around you and cutting back in. They're using a lane that you're refusing to use. That's your problem, not theirs.

When you can see 4 cars up in the right lane there's a slow moving vehicle, you're going to stay left even if the right lane is immediately open because you know you'll end up being in it.

The impatient one flying around on the right thinks he can pass 3 cars then have the right to squeeze back over.

If it's clear in front of me or I can close the gap between me and the car in front of me, I'll usually accelerate and block them in the right lane which they knew was moving slow ahead. That's -their- problem, and they can wait behind me in the left lane flow with the rest of us. They aren't getting anywhere being in front, and they were already behind to begin with, they can remain there until we all pass the slow moving right lane person, then spread back out.

[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).

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

Hm.  How isn't the climbing lane on the Mohawk Trail general purpose?

[froggie]

It's striped as a shoulder and specifically signed "Slower Trucks Use Shoulder".

[jakeroot]

They cause traffic to slow because there isn't a gap for them to merge into when they get to the vehicle everyone is passing, so people have to slow down to let them in.  You'll have a truck on the right doing 64, a truck on the left doing 66, but you're doing 50 because people are slowing down to let in people passing on the right.  It happens ALL THE TIME on the Thruway.

How can you be in the left lane doing 50, when the leading vehicle is doing 66? I've never experienced that.

Zipper merge works great when everyone is on the same page and working together to make it happen, but not when it's only an excuse to cut in line.

How can you define when it is and isn't "cut[ting] in line"? One lane always ends, minus a few rare situations.

If one line of traffic is merging into another, for any reason, always zipper merge. People perceive "right" and "wrong" times to do it, but they base their opinion of "right" and "wrong" on their own personal feelings, not any sort of fact ("that guy is cheating"..."they had their chance"...). That is BS.

If it's clear in front of me or I can close the gap between me and the car in front of me, I'll usually accelerate and block them in the right lane which they knew was moving slow ahead. That's -their- problem, and they can wait behind me in the left lane flow with the rest of us.

No, that's your problem. You sped up to block them, thereby creating the problem. If they wanted to slip in front of you, and had room until you sped up, you created the issue. The only thing they did wrong was piss you off. When has driving angry ever worked?

They aren't getting anywhere being in front

Neither are you. Why so defensive?

[jeffandnicole]

Many also have this theory that when a roadway loses a lane, it shouldn't cause a reduction in speed whatsoever.  Sometimes that's true, if the highway has the capacity to handle the existing traffic before and after the lane reduction.  Let's use some pretend numbers:

Highway lane can hold 2,000 vehicles per hour.  There's 3 lanes on the highway, merging to 2.

If there's an average of 3,000 vehicles on the highway in the 3 lane section (1,000 vehicles per hour per lane), then the 2 lane section can obsorb the 3,000 vehicles, as there's still room for 4,000 vehicles total.  In theory, people can keep moving with no problem.

If there's an average of 4,500 vehicles on the highway in the 3 lane section (1,500 vehicles per hour per lane), then the 2 lane section can NOT obsorb the 4,500 vehicles, as it will be 500 vehicles over capacity (250 per lane).

There's also an assumption that everyone will maintain their speed, and that the speed limit is the same before and after the merge point..  This is what throws most people off - people travel at all different speeds.  Some people are more hesitant than others, and some people like leaving bigger gaps than others.  And believe it or not, some people are actually travelling below the speed limit.  So in a merging situation, if you get a hesitant person or slow truck doing 60 rather than 70, everyone merging in behind that person will need to slow down too.

Constructions zones are the worst.  As mentioned in other responses above, people believe they should be moving the same speed before and after the merge point, and when people merge in it causes the slowdown.  However, often times the speed limit is slower in construction zones, so people SHOULD be slowing down.  There's also the fact that construction invites watching - drivers will natually slow down because they're looking at what is going on.  No all drivers will, but if Mr. John Doe slowed down to 20 mph because he was interested in what was going on rather than watching his speed, it causes everyone behind him to slow down to 20 mph. It doesn't matter where everyone merges in, because they're stuck going the slow speed John Doe is going, until he speeds up again, and traffic dies down a bit to reduce and eventually eliminiates the backlog.

[vdeane]

I'm one of those people that likes to maintain a constant speed.  If I'm slowing down and it's not for a speed limit change, severe weather, or roadway conditions like curves/obstacles/etc. (the only thing that would be applicable to freeways off of ramps from this last bit would be toll barriers), I'm going to be annoyed.

How can you be in the left lane doing 50, when the leading vehicle is doing 66? I've never experienced that.

Combined effect of people braking/slowing down to let others in over time.  Between Buffalo and Syracuse, the Thruway is prone to forming conga lines of dozens of cars all passing a smaller caravan of slow moving traffic (which can range from a single truck/RV to a whole bunch of them traveling near each other), especially on summer weekends and holidays (although Rochester/Buffalo does this even during the week, and yesterday's traffic was so bad that this was a system-wide phenomenon).  Oftentimes the vehicle being let in is going the speed of the vehicles being passed because otherwise they'd rear-end them.  When in one of these lines, speed can vary wildly - down to 65 as you approach, down to 50 when someone gets let in, up to 70 when catching back up to the lead car, etc. - and of course, whenever speed decreases, people slam on the brakes.  Traffic is heavy enough that trucks wanting to pass can't wait until they can do so without obstructing traffic - if they did, they would never pass at all.

How can you define when it is and isn't "cut[ting] in line"? One lane always ends, minus a few rare situations.

If one line of traffic is merging into another, for any reason, always zipper merge. People perceive "right" and "wrong" times to do it, but they base their opinion of "right" and "wrong" on their own personal feelings, not any sort of fact ("that guy is cheating"..."they had their chance"...). That is BS.

When driving myself, I always base it on a calculus of what can be reasonably foreseen.  If I'm at a gap where I can move over without interfering with traffic and can reasonably expect that there won't be a gap before I have to move over, I'll move over right then.  If there's already no gap, I'll take the lane to the end.  It's people who go all the way to the end, bypassing a reasonable gap to move over when it's clear that they won't have a clear gap to merge into later, that's the problem.

[webny99]

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.

If there's something downstream that is going to require some braking, it's probably best to use all available lane space, in both lanes, and forgo any sort of KRETP rules. At that point, just maximize available capacity and use all the lanes that the engineers provided.

I'm not sure what the problem is, with people going around you and cutting back in. They're using a lane that you're refusing to use. That's your problem, not theirs. Fact is, if we all stayed in one lane, backups would be enormous. I understand the rubber-band braking effect; this is why I tend to downshift instead of using my brakes. But it's not something that a single driver can actively avoid or solve.

Vdeane pretty much nailed it with the response to this, so there's not a lot left to say. Rural interstates out west generally have a lot less volume than the Thruway, or other 2dis I frequent like I-81 or I-80.

If I am in the left lane, either (a) I am going to be actively passing immediately, or (b) I believe I have reached the last gap where I can expect to get in without cutting someone off. In (b), I always keep up with the car in front of me, regardless of their speed, after moving left. This serves two purposes: it keeps the left lane moving as fast as possible, and it ensures anyone behind me has to either get in behind me (which is what they should do) or go up further and force their way in. The left lane is the passing lane, and that's what it should be used for. Passing on the right is a last resort, and doing it to people who aren't actively left lane camping, and then forcing your way in and causing a line of a dozen, or sometimes even a hundred or more cars to brake, is just impatient and idiotic.

[webny99]

How can you be in the left lane doing 50, when the leading vehicle is doing 66? I've never experienced that.

Combined effect of people braking/slowing down to let others in over time. Between Buffalo and Syracuse, the Thruway is prone to forming conga lines of dozens of cars all passing a smaller caravan of slow moving traffic (which can range from a single truck/RV to a whole bunch of them traveling near each other), especially on summer weekends and holidays (although Rochester/Buffalo does this even during the week, and yesterday's traffic was so bad that this was a system-wide phenomenon).  Oftentimes the vehicle being let in is going the speed of the vehicles being passed because otherwise they'd rear-end them.  When in one of these lines, speed can vary wildly - down to 65 as you approach, down to 50 when someone gets let in, up to 70 when catching back up to the lead car, etc. - and of course, whenever speed decreases, people slam on the brakes.  Traffic is heavy enough that trucks wanting to pass can't wait until they can do so without obstructing traffic - if they did, they would never pass at all.

Excellent summary. The left lane frequently has fluctuations of 20+ mph; sometimes even double that (80 mph to 40 mph and repeat). Even if you can see well in front, it's hard to predict exactly what's happening upstream, and it's common to have the person in front of you hammer the brakes for no apparent reason, only to find out they were inches from rear ending the person in front of them. And so on.

How can you define when it is and isn't "cut[ting] in line"? One lane always ends, minus a few rare situations.
If one line of traffic is merging into another, for any reason, always zipper merge. People perceive "right" and "wrong" times to do it, but they base their opinion of "right" and "wrong" on their own personal feelings, not any sort of fact ("that guy is cheating"..."they had their chance"...). That is BS.

In the case of passing trucks on a free-flowing highway, it is not really a matter of one line of traffic merging into another. When there is less than a car length of space next to you and you force your way in, you are cutting off. The person behind you will have to brake, there is just no way around it. Yet people will try to cut in with significantly less space than that; a few feet or even inches.
As mentioned, zipper only works when the lane drop is in a fixed position; not so much with moving parts.

What constitutes "cheating" is largely in the eyes of the beholder. If you have just come whizzing up on the right, it is certainly cheating in my book to force your way in at the end. That does nothing for anyone else but slows the whole system down for your own personal benefit. Impatient and idiotic, indeed. However, if you've been sitting behind the truck for 20 minutes, patiently waiting for a gap, I'm happy to slow slightly without braking and let you in. Then you need to be prepared to accelerate, pass quickly, and get back over when you're done.

[webny99]

If it's clear in front of me or I can close the gap between me and the car in front of me, I'll usually accelerate and block them in the right lane which they knew was moving slow ahead. That's -their- problem, and they can wait behind me in the left lane flow with the rest of us.

No, that's your problem. You sped up to block them, thereby creating the problem. If they wanted to slip in front of you, and had room until you sped up, you created the issue. The only thing they did wrong was piss you off. When has driving angry ever worked?

It depends on why they were in the right lane. If they're using it to get ahead of as many people as possible and cram in at the end, they deserve to be blocked. If they're innocently cruising along, it's their responsibility to get over as they see fit. If that's happens to be in front of me, that's fine, as long as I don't have to brake, and as long as they're going to keep up with the flow of the passing lane and not encourage me and everyone behind me to pass them on the right.

[sprjus4]

If it's clear in front of me or I can close the gap between me and the car in front of me, I'll usually accelerate and block them in the right lane which they knew was moving slow ahead. That's -their- problem, and they can wait behind me in the left lane flow with the rest of us.

No, that's your problem. You sped up to block them, thereby creating the problem. If they wanted to slip in front of you, and had room until you sped up, you created the issue. The only thing they did wrong was piss you off. When has driving angry ever worked?

It depends on why they were in the right lane. If they're using it to get ahead of as many people as possible and cram in at the end, they deserve to be blocked. If they're innocently cruising along, it's their responsibility to get over as they see fit. If that's happens to be in front of me, that's fine, as long as I don't have to brake, and as long as they're going to keep up with the flow of the passing lane and not encourage me and everyone behind me to pass them on the right.

The instance I'm referring to is when everybody in the left lane is doing 80 mph in a 70 mph, and then they explicitly get in the right lane just to speed up to 90 mph and then squeeze back in the left lane 3-5 cars up. I'm going to block them if I'm the car they are going to cut off and that's -their- problem. They are doing an illegal maneuver just to end up nowhere. They can get stuck behind the slow guy (who's actually still over the speed limit at 75 mph) and find a gap instead of trying to get in front of me usually causing me to have to slow down as they meet speed. I'm not going to let them in.

Now if they were innocently there and they are trying to get into the fast flow, I tend to let them. But not when they have been in the fast flow and think they can go even FASTER in the right lane to then have to cut me off just to get back in again.

And usually when they squeeze in front of me, if I let them, they'll end up tailgating and going in and out of lanes ahead until they can maintain 90 mph in a 70 mph. When everybody is doing 80 mph in the left lane, that's too slow for them.

This is speaking directly from experience.

[tradephoric]

If it's clear in front of me or I can close the gap between me and the car in front of me, I'll usually accelerate and block them in the right lane which they knew was moving slow ahead. That's -their- problem, and they can wait behind me in the left lane flow with the rest of us.

No, that's your problem. You sped up to block them, thereby creating the problem. If they wanted to slip in front of you, and had room until you sped up, you created the issue. The only thing they did wrong was piss you off. When has driving angry ever worked?

It depends on why they were in the right lane. If they're using it to get ahead of as many people as possible and cram in at the end, they deserve to be blocked. If they're innocently cruising along, it's their responsibility to get over as they see fit. If that's happens to be in front of me, that's fine, as long as I don't have to brake, and as long as they're going to keep up with the flow of the passing lane and not encourage me and everyone behind me to pass them on the right.

The instance I'm referring to is when everybody in the left lane is doing 80 mph in a 70 mph, and then they explicitly get in the right lane just to speed up to 90 mph and then squeeze back in the left lane 3-5 cars up. I'm going to block them if I'm the car they are going to cut off and that's -their- problem. They are doing an illegal maneuver just to end up nowhere. They can get stuck behind the slow guy (who's actually still over the speed limit at 75 mph) and find a gap instead of trying to get in front of me usually causing me to have to slow down as they meet speed. I'm not going to let them in.

Now if they were innocently there and they are trying to get into the fast flow, I tend to let them. But not when they have been in the fast flow and think they can go even FASTER in the right lane to then have to cut me off just to get back in again.

And usually when they squeeze in front of me, if I let them, they'll end up tailgating and going in and out of lanes ahead until they can maintain 90 mph in a 70 mph. When everybody is doing 80 mph in the left lane, that's too slow for them.

This is speaking directly from experience.

I'm looking forward to a world of self-driving vehicles as they will be programmed to maintain a safe following distance.  So as a human driver i will be able to cut infront of that self-driving vehicle and it won't "speed up" to block me in like the scenario you are describing.  I will have total immunity to be an A-hole driver.  Who knows though, maybe the self-driving vehicles will learn not to get pushed around by the human drivers, and speed up to block them in?  It's a whole new driving world we are living in.

[sprjus4]

I will have total immunity to be an A-hole driver.

If you are going to go in the right lane to speed up to 90 mph then expect the left lane to let you back in because you made a poor choice - you are the A-hole driver.

You had your spot, you decided to give it up and think you could get around on the right when you couldn't - you can wait to get back in. I'm not going to slow down and reduce my speed so you can get back in.

And you mention "safe following distance". By squeezing in, you are reducing following distance and you end up doing the exact same thing you're trying to criticize other drivers from doing. When you squeeze in the gap, you end up riding close to the person in front, or forcing the person behind to end up riding close to you.

Bottom line - if the entire left lane is packed full of drivers doing 80 mph in a 70 mph zone and the right lane -looks- empty, chances are there's a slower vehicle and that's why everybody is hogging the left lane - to pass it. Just suck it up in the left lane until everybody passes - don't try to veer around on the right to get absolutely nowhere and then expect others to be kind enough to let you in and then get mad when they don't.

[webny99]

When this type of thing recurs often enough, the left lane probably has to carry too large a burden, and a case needs to made for widening the road. This is exactly why I have been so persistent in advocating for six laning the Thruway.

(The other reason being that all the bridges are already wide enough for it; all that's needed is the machines and labor to lay the asphalt down - probably a fraction of the cost of the switch to AET. The new lanes could even be summer-only, no need to plow and salt them in the winter when they're not needed.)

[sprjus4]

When this type of thing recurs often enough, the left lane probably has to carry too large a burden, and a case needs to made for widening the road. This is exactly why I have been so persistent in advocating for six laning the Thruway.

(The other reason being that all the bridges are already wide enough for it; all that's needed is the machines and labor to lay the asphalt down - probably a fraction of the cost of the switch to AET. The new lanes could even be summer-only, no need to plow and salt them in the winter when they're not needed.)

Same with I-64. A lot of slower trucks and vehicles use the right lane, and there's an excessive amount of traffic that slows the left lane down too. That, along with passing trucks, etc.

It carries 60,000 - 70,000 AADT, with up to 100,000 VPD on peak travel times, and is in serious need of 6-lanes.

[michravera]

At the rate self-driving vehicles are developing, I don't know how much longer we'll even need speed limits. I don't mind a 65 limit, assuming self-driving trucks will travel in platoons without any passing that may block the #1 lane.

Everyone says self-driving cars are far away, but they're not. Many modern vehicles are capable of full self-driving on freeways. Tesla's can even change lanes (and exit) automatically. This truck completely drove itself for about ten miles, without anyone in it, about two weeks ago:

https://youtu.be/UCNSZKXvi64

We had speech recognition working in test in 1982. Siri was released in what? 2012? Alexa still doesn't get "The Doors eponous first album" or "The Doors The Doors" at least when I say it.

"Self Driving cars" and "autonomous large trucks that can reliably share the road with other vehicles under less than ideal conditions" are not necessarily the same thing, but we will get there, but it might be 2050. On the other hand, if the driverless trucks all reliably got themselves to or from a truck center in Lodi or Gilroy or Dixon or and the human drivers all jockeyed them from there, it might certainly be an improvement in both safety and trucker's lives.

[skluth]

At the rate self-driving vehicles are developing, I don't know how much longer we'll even need speed limits. I don't mind a 65 limit, assuming self-driving trucks will travel in platoons without any passing that may block the #1 lane.

Everyone says self-driving cars are far away, but they're not. Many modern vehicles are capable of full self-driving on freeways. Tesla's can even change lanes (and exit) automatically. This truck completely drove itself for about ten miles, without anyone in it, about two weeks ago:

https://youtu.be/UCNSZKXvi64

I wouldn't be surprised if self-driving trucks became commonplace first. Most drivers like driving, even if they don't like driving in traffic. It's mostly convenience, but privacy, self-expression, and personal space are also factors. There are significant financial incentives for self-driving trucks. No need to train and pay drivers, though it may still be good to keep a low-wage rider to monitor the truck and help with loading and unloading. Insurance will eventually be less because drivers aren't texting or falling asleep behind the wheel. Fuel will probably be less because the trucks will probably optimize fuel consumption as part of their programming. Some busier highways will probably require self-driving vehicles eventually, meaning trucks will need to be self-driving to use those roadways.

We had speech recognition working in test in 1982. Siri was released in what? 2012? Alexa still doesn't get "The Doors eponous first album" or "The Doors The Doors" at least when I say it.

"Self Driving cars" and "autonomous large trucks that can reliably share the road with other vehicles under less than ideal conditions" are not necessarily the same thing, but we will get there, but it might be 2050. On the other hand, if the driverless trucks all reliably got themselves to or from a truck center in Lodi or Gilroy or Dixon or and the human drivers all jockeyed them from there, it might certainly be an improvement in both safety and trucker's lives.

[RobbieL2415]

What would be the penalty for non-compliance? 10% reduction in federal highway funding?

[PHLBOS]

What would be the penalty for non-compliance? 10% reduction in federal highway funding?

IIRC, back in the bad old days of the National Speed Limit(s); it was withholding of all federal highway funding in a particular state for non-compliance.  A similar penalty still exists today for states not complying with the minimum drinking age of 21.

[tolbs17]

Why are they lowering the speed limit for trucks? I say leave it the way it is. It's going to cause more weaving and accidents and we don't want that to happen. 

[kphoger]

Why are they lowering the speed limit for trucks?

For one thing, it takes a significantly longer time for a truck to come to a stop than for a passenger vehicle to come to a stop.  At a driving safety presentation back when I drove a box truck for a living, I remember the presenter saying that the "two second rule" should be used as per ten feet of vehicle length.

[froggie]

^ As in 2 seconds for every 10 feet of your truck length?

[1995hoo]

Why are they lowering the speed limit for trucks?

If I'm not mistaken, it's a proposed truck speed limit, not a done deal. Politicians propose things all the time and the majority of those proposals never become law.

[jeffandnicole]

Why are they lowering the speed limit for trucks?

For one thing, it takes a significantly longer time for a truck to come to a stop than for a passenger vehicle to come to a stop.  At a driving safety presentation back when I drove a box truck for a living, I remember the presenter saying that the "two second rule" should be used as per ten feet of vehicle length.

A full trailer and cab is upwards of around 70 feet.  At 2 seconds per 10 feet, you're leaving 14 seconds, or nearly a 1/4 mile between the truck and the vehicle in front.  It's a totally unrealistic expectation, and if presented in that format, the presenter would've been laughed out of the room.