"State Law" Signs

[kphoger]

Oklahoma has a "STATE LAW: MERGE NOW [arrow]" sign for use at temporary lane drops, meant to promote early merging rather than the behavior many exhibit of speeding up to the cones and sitting there waiting for a gap.

I hate those signs.  If it's a state law that I not use the left lane anymore, then why is the darned thing wide open?

[empirestate]

Oklahoma has a "STATE LAW: MERGE NOW [arrow]" sign for use at temporary lane drops, meant to promote early merging rather than the behavior many exhibit of speeding up to the cones and sitting there waiting for a gap.

I hate those signs.  If it's a state law that I not use the left lane anymore, then why is the darned thing wide open?

Meanwhile, Pennsylvania advocates "Use Both Lanes to Merge Point". I doubt it's officially the law, however; I'd be curious to see the text of the OK statute.

[agentsteel53]

Oregon Trucks-Trailers/Campers-Buses Unlawful to use Left Lane Except When Passing

make it unlawful to pass at significantly below the speed of left lane traffic, and we are getting somewhere.

oh wait, this is Oregon, home of the most bovine drivers in the country.  "three abreast?  uhh, is that a Total Recall reference?"

[hm insulators]

Alabama has the "STATE LAW MOVE OVER OR SLOW DOWN FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES" sign, but it is all black on white; no yellow banner at the top.

Similar to Arizona, then.

[SP Cook]

Leaving aside a technical (and thus meaningless in practical terms) discussion of some supposed difference between a "law" and "rule" or a "regulation" would not EVERYTHING on a regulatory sign on a state maintained highway be a "state law" ?  Thus what is the point?

[KEK Inc.]

State Law is supposed to imply that it's a unique law specific to [certain] states.  Although, that's rarely the case for some of the passing and crosswalk laws.

It's applicable for stuff like weights for trucks, helmets for bicyclists, littering fines, and cell phone laws.  All of which vary by state.

[corco]

State Law is supposed to imply that it's a unique law specific to [certain] states.  Although, that's rarely the case for some of the passing and crosswalk laws.

I thought it was intended to emphasize that it is a law and you can be ticketed for violation- people tend to forget that you have to stop for pedestrians in crosswalks and keep right except to pass.

[DSS5]

It's applicable for stuff like weights for trucks, helmets for bicyclists, littering fines, and cell phone laws.  All of which vary by state.

It's strange what laws the state finds worthy of putting on those signs though. NC has a no texting and driving law, but it's not indicated on any signs. Meanwhile I thought that "burning" headlights while using wipers was a standard practice.

[Pete from Boston]

Connecticut still makes obtuse references to state statutes on their liability in construction zones.  It's kind of the opposite of these blunt declarations, distant and vague while still threatening.

New York still has some signs that say "State Speed Limit 55" even though that's not true anymore. 

New Jersey actually switched, I think, from yield to pedestrians to full stop for them.  New Jersey also reminds you that it's state law to use headlights with wipers. 

[Alps]

Connecticut still makes obtuse references to state statutes on their liability in construction zones.  It's kind of the opposite of these blunt declarations, distant and vague while still threatening.

New York still has some signs that say "State Speed Limit 55" even though that's not true anymore. 

How about "State Speed Limit 40"? Unwitting patch job on former NY 172 EB just east of I-684 and just before a stop sign.

[vdeane]

New York still has some signs that say "State Speed Limit 55" even though that's not true anymore. 

Actually, it is.  If there is no posted speed limit, the limit is considered to be 55.  Also, 65 is a special exception for certain freeways.  NYSDOT is prohibited from setting a speed limit higher than 55 on non-freeways.

[empirestate]

Meanwhile I thought that "burning" headlights while using wipers was a standard practice.

Using headlights when it's raining certainly is (or should be) standard practice. By parallel circumstance, using your wipers when it's raining is also standard practice. In other words, you use your headlights because it's raining, not because your wipers are on, but framing the law that way gives a measurable and provable circumstance to require headlight use, whereas "it's raining" may be more arguable.

[NE2]

Using headlights when it's raining certainly is (or should be) standard practice. By parallel circumstance, using your wipers when it's raining is also standard practice. In other words, you use your headlights because it's raining, not because your wipers are on, but framing the law that way gives a measurable and provable circumstance to require headlight use, whereas "it's raining" may be more arguable.

It also means you don't need a light on your bike when it's raining. (But it's not actually defined that way in Florida.)

[kinupanda]

For work zones, Texas has "OBEY WARNING SIGNS-STATE LAW; which, of course, amkes no sense, because you can only obey a regulatory sign. These signs are completely useless, and, along with the "TRAFFIC FINES DOUBLE WHEN WORKERS ARE PRESENT" signs, just add to the sign clutter in work zones.

I believe the standard wording is actually "OBSERVE WARNING SIGNS"... it looks like someone modified this particular one (note the different typeface).

[vdeane]

Meanwhile I thought that "burning" headlights while using wipers was a standard practice.

Using headlights when it's raining certainly is (or should be) standard practice. By parallel circumstance, using your wipers when it's raining is also standard practice. In other words, you use your headlights because it's raining, not because your wipers are on, but framing the law that way gives a measurable and provable circumstance to require headlight use, whereas "it's raining" may be more arguable.

I really wish the law said "when it's raining" rather than "when your wipers are on".  Does the law as it is now mean I have to flash my headlights if I need to use the washer fluid to clean my windshield?

[Kacie Jane]

I think the issue with defining it as "when it's raining" is... well, at what point does one consider it raining?  Like, if it's just a bit sprinkly, is that considered rain?  If it's just a drop every once in a while, is that rain?

Whereas rainfall significant enough that you have to run your wipers to see out your windshield makes a handy definition.

[Alps]

Meanwhile I thought that "burning" headlights while using wipers was a standard practice.

Using headlights when it's raining certainly is (or should be) standard practice. By parallel circumstance, using your wipers when it's raining is also standard practice. In other words, you use your headlights because it's raining, not because your wipers are on, but framing the law that way gives a measurable and provable circumstance to require headlight use, whereas "it's raining" may be more arguable.

I really wish the law said "when it's raining" rather than "when your wipers are on".  Does the law as it is now mean I have to flash my headlights if I need to use the washer fluid to clean my windshield?

Picturing someone actually doing this is giving me the giggles.

[1995hoo]

I think the issue with defining it as "when it's raining" is... well, at what point does one consider it raining?  Like, if it's just a bit sprinkly, is that considered rain?  If it's just a drop every once in a while, is that rain?

Whereas rainfall significant enough that you have to run your wipers to see out your windshield makes a handy definition.

The Virginia statute (46.2-1030), for one, limits it:

A. Every vehicle in operation on a highway in the Commonwealth shall display lighted headlights and illuminating devices as required by this article (i)from sunset to sunrise, (ii) during any other time when, because of rain, smoke, fog, snow, sleet, insufficient light, or other unfavorable atmospheric conditions, visibility is reduced to a degree whereby persons or vehicles on the highway are not clearly discernible at a distance of 500 feet, and (iii)whenever windshield wipers are in use as a result of fog, rain, sleet, or snow. The provisions of this subsection, however, shall not apply to instances when windshield wipers are used intermittently in misting rain, sleet, or snow.

....

[empirestate]

The Virginia statute (46.2-1030), for one, limits it:

A. Every vehicle in operation on a highway in the Commonwealth shall display lighted headlights and illuminating devices as required by this article (i)from sunset to sunrise, (ii) during any other time when, because of rain, smoke, fog, snow, sleet, insufficient light, or other unfavorable atmospheric conditions, visibility is reduced to a degree whereby persons or vehicles on the highway are not clearly discernible at a distance of 500 feet, and (iii)whenever windshield wipers are in use as a result of fog, rain, sleet, or snow. The provisions of this subsection, however, shall not apply to instances when windshield wipers are used intermittently in misting rain, sleet, or snow.

....

But then, does the law actually require use of the wipers in inclement weather? If not, now you've got some wiseguy who doesn't turn on his wipers in a downpour, even though he can't see, so he figures "hey, my wipers aren't on so I can legally leave the headlights off!"

...Of course, that's a far more thorough thought process than you'd expect from such a driver!

[machias]

New York still has some signs that say "State Speed Limit 55" even though that's not true anymore. 

Actually, it is.  If there is no posted speed limit, the limit is considered to be 55.  Also, 65 is a special exception for certain freeways.  NYSDOT is prohibited from setting a speed limit higher than 55 on non-freeways.

Yep, "State Speed Limit 55" is actually an abbreviation for "State Speed Limit 55 Unless Otherwise Posted" (lower or higher), same as "Village Speed Limit 30" means the speed limit within the village limits is 30 unless otherwise posted (lower or higher). 

All of this makes signs like "END 40 MPH SPEED" or "END 40 MPH LIMIT" mean the speed limit is 55 because the state speed limit is 55 in New York unless otherwise posted.

[DSS5]

All of this makes signs like "END 40 MPH SPEED" or "END 40 MPH LIMIT" mean the speed limit is 55 because the state speed limit is 55 in New York unless otherwise posted.

The problem with that is that they're only posted at state borders. I didn't drive across a state border until I'd already had my license for a year, and your average Joe may not do it enough to actually know that information. It would just be easier if the sign said what the new speed limit was.

[machias]

All of this makes signs like "END 40 MPH SPEED" or "END 40 MPH LIMIT" mean the speed limit is 55 because the state speed limit is 55 in New York unless otherwise posted.

The problem with that is that they're only posted at state borders. I didn't drive across a state border until I'd already had my license for a year, and your average Joe may not do it enough to actually know that information. It would just be easier if the sign said what the new speed limit was.

I agree with you, but there's the American way and then there's the New York way.  

I've always wondered why NYSDOT had to come up with all these STATE LAW signs instead of just mirroring what other states use. For example, why did they have to use their own "MOVE OVER" sign with a STATE LAW banner at the top when states that border New York all use the same standard format.

[Jim]

The "State Speed Limit 55" signs aren't just at the borders in New York, they're used regularly throughout the state.

Also, I've noticed that NY seems to be migrating away from the annoying "End 40 MPH Limit" and similar signs. 

They've also started posting the yellow diamonds with a new speed limit and an arrow where "Speed Zone Ahead" was the previous standard.

[kphoger]

The Virginia statute (46.2-1030), for one, limits it:

A. Every vehicle in operation on a highway in the Commonwealth shall display lighted headlights and illuminating devices as required by this article (i)from sunset to sunrise, (ii) during any other time when, because of rain, smoke, fog, snow, sleet, insufficient light, or other unfavorable atmospheric conditions, visibility is reduced to a degree whereby persons or vehicles on the highway are not clearly discernible at a distance of 500 feet, and (iii)whenever windshield wipers are in use as a result of fog, rain, sleet, or snow. The provisions of this subsection, however, shall not apply to instances when windshield wipers are used intermittently in misting rain, sleet, or snow.

....

But then, does the law actually require use of the wipers in inclement weather? If not, now you've got some wiseguy who doesn't turn on his wipers in a downpour, even though he can't see, so he figures "hey, my wipers aren't on so I can legally leave the headlights off!"

...Of course, that's a far more thorough thought process than you'd expect from such a driver!

I use windshield cleaner that has Rain-X in it.  Consequently, I can usually see just fine out of my windshield, even in heavy rain, without the use of wipers.  It has to be raining quite hard, in fact, for me to turn mine on.  However, I do use my headlights in even the slightest rain.  I just wanted to point out that it's not just "some wiseguy" who keeps his wipers off.  I actually find the wipers more distracting in most cases than the rain itself.

[hbelkins]

In my Saturn Vue, I let the DRL's and the automatic headlight feature take care of any lighting needs I have.

In my Toyota Tacoma, I had gotten in the habit of turning my lights on anyway whenever I was on a long trip just to increase visibility, since the vehicle did not come equipped with DRL's.