Those slow drivers in the left lane

[SSOWorld]

From the "Illinois may Increase speed limit 70" thread in Great lakes... --ms

^^
Ohio, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Oregon need to join the 21st Century.  For that matter, most of the northeast could also bump up to 70 with no problem, IMHO.

I agree.  When I went from Hartford, CT to Alexandria, VA I noticed the highest speed limit was 65.  I can understand the limited speed limit in the highly urban areas (going through the cities) but in many cases the speed limit could be raised to 70 or even 75 in the rural areas (I-84 between Waterbury and Danbury).  When I was taking the NJ Turnpike and even I-95 in Maryland north of Baltimore I occasionally hit 80 or 85, and that was with the flow of traffic. 

You can't say these things until you've traveled the road more than once.  I-84 should be nowhere near 75 in Connecticut, not to mention it really can't move above 50 most times.  The NJ Turnpike is designed for 75-80 mph or higher, but it has such a high truck mix that fatal accidents will skyrocket for every 5 mph you add.  And we've discussed split limits before, and they're less desirable than just keeping everyone at 65.  Same issue with I-95 in MD - fewer trucks, by a long shot, but then again you have four lanes in each direction, which gives you more weaving and certainly more traffic in general, thus conducive to lower speeds.  There's a reason the Northeast moves slower!

It may be true that traffic is a major factor in speed limits, but most of the time (barring accidents/rush hour) traffic moves on I-84 and most other roads in CT faster than the speed limit.  A speed limit is a limit, it isn't a requirement that drivers must go 65.  I believe in following the flow of traffic.  That's just a opinion of a person that has lived in CT for his entire life. 

It is true - go with the flow of the traffic.  Unfortunately, many drivers don't share that view and have much desire to get around that slow vehicle at all costs - which leads to crashes.

[agentsteel53]

It is true - go with the flow of the traffic.

one person doing 58 in the fast lane with everyone else doing 85 to get around him ... the slow guy is decidedly not who is defining the flow of traffic.  he's a rock in the stream.

[SSOWorld]

It is true - go with the flow of the traffic.

one person doing 58 in the fast lane with everyone else doing 85 to get around him ... the slow guy is decidedly not who is defining the flow of traffic.  he's a rock in the stream.

Hence why you have the weaving traffic.

[agentsteel53]

Hence why you have the weaving traffic.

indeed we do, and I do not think it reasonable to blame the asinine driving behavior of everyone for the asinine driving behavior of one person.

[SSOWorld]

indeed - but the police think otherwise.

[mightyace]

^^^

The "keeping up with flow of traffic" law?/rule? can lead to a no-win situation.

Let's say traffic is moving 70 in a 55mph zone.

If you are going 55 mph, you are a safety hazard and may be cited for not "keeping up with flow of traffic".  However, despite that, plenty of jurisdictions would still pull you over for speeding even though "everybody was doing it".

[Landshark]

indeed - but the police think otherwise.

Those cops should be fired.  The jerk going slow in the fast lane is doing far more harm.  In my state, there are a number of things they can ding the jerk in the fast lane with. 

[corco]

If I were a cop, the way I would handle the whole flow of traffic argument if traffic is flowing at...say...85 in a 55 is to ask the following:

1. Is the driver in the right lane going 55?- if that's the case, they may be dangerous but best not to pull them over
2. Is the driver in the left lane going 55?- if that's the case, he's blatantly disregarding flow of traffic principles and should get a ticket
3. Is the driver in the right lane going 85?- if that's the case, he's speeding
4. Is the driver in the left lane going 85?- if that's the case, he's doing his best to keep up with the flow of traffic, so no ticket

If traffic is flowing 85 in a 55 and the driver is going as much as one under the speed limit, he should be pulled over and ticketed for obstructing traffic.

[mightyace]

^^^

That's a logical and sensible way to handle it.

<sarcasm> Therefore, it will never happen. </sarcasm>

[corco]

^^^

That's a logical and sensible way to handle it.

<sarcasm> Therefore, it will never happen. </sarcasm>

Yeah, you're right. Unfortunately it will always be more lucrative to pull over those trying to keep up with the flow of traffic. It's also an easier court win- if a car was speeding a car was speeding- pretty objective. Things like proper lane position and traffic flow obstruction (especially when the car is going the legal limit) are a lot more subjective and difficult to win.

[SSOWorld]

Indeed - easier to win - easier to make money.

[Truvelo]

If I were a cop, the way I would handle the whole flow of traffic argument if traffic is flowing at...say...85 in a 55 is to ask the following:

1. Is the driver in the right lane going 55?- if that's the case, they may be dangerous but best not to pull them over
2. Is the driver in the left lane going 55?- if that's the case, he's blatantly disregarding flow of traffic principles and should get a ticket
3. Is the driver in the right lane going 85?- if that's the case, he's speeding
4. Is the driver in the left lane going 85?- if that's the case, he's doing his best to keep up with the flow of traffic, so no ticket

If traffic is flowing 85 in a 55 and the driver is going as much as one under the speed limit, he should be pulled over and ticketed for obstructing traffic.

I would say the 55mph limit is the cause of the problem and it should need raising.

[agentsteel53]

I would say the 55mph limit is the cause of the problem and it should need raising.

55 is stupid.  every time I see a 55, I think that the local administration is utterly lazy. 

yes, there are some areas that happen to be validly signed as 55 mph, but they are far between.  I'd honestly rather see a 50, because that implies that the local council has thought about it.

(but in all honestly I'd rather see 99.)

[wh15395]

I would say the 55mph limit is the cause of the problem and it should need raising.

55 is stupid.  every time I see a 55, I think that the local administration is utterly lazy. 

yes, there are some areas that happen to be validly signed as 55 mph, but they are far between.  I'd honestly rather see a 50, because that implies that the local council has thought about it.

(but in all honestly I'd rather see 99.)

In Indiana (and I thought every state) our speed limits are set by the state. I believe that if Indianapolis or Lake County had the jurisdiction to set the speed limits, it would be 65. The Indianapolis police rarely pull people over, it is just the state police.

[mightyace]

(but in all honestly I'd rather see 99.)

Unless it's in an interstate shield. 

[iwishiwascanadian]

I hate people who impede the flow of traffic.  Where I live most people don't follow the speed limit (going 80/85 in a 55/60/65).  I think that many states never changed speed limits when the national limit was removed.  I can understand where a lower speed limit is needed (I-91 North in Longmeadow/Springfield MA), but for the most part many limits could be raised.  If it came to a ticket, I would rather ticket someone who is slower than traffic and therefore impeding the flow of traffic, but i'm not a law enforcement official. 

[Bickendan]

Here's another nuisance: People who start slowing down BEFORE turning on the turn signal. That's IF they even turn the damn blinker on!

[corco]

Here's another nuisance: People who start slowing down BEFORE turning on the turn signal. That's IF they even turn the damn blinker on!

On that, note, and in keeping with the flow of traffic problem, I can't stand folks who brake before their exit. Sure, if you're in rural Wyoming and the exit is a glorified 90 degree turn or in a super urban area with a really short ramp, it may make sense, but for the vast majority of ramps across the country it is perfectly safe for a car with legal brakes to go 75 or 80 (or whatever the speed limit) to the point where they are on the exit ramp and be able to safely slow down in time for the stop light.

[Troubleshooter]

The person to arrest when traffic is going 85 in a 55 zone is the politician who is insisting that the speed limit be 55. He obviously is more interested in getting ticket revenue for his government.

If the traffic is that dispersed in speed, it indicates an incapability of some vehicles to keep up, and a lack of enough lanes.

Before you berate the slow driver, you need to look for reasons he is going slow:

- Some of the little gas-saving cars can't go 85.

- Some cars built in the 1980s don't have speedometers that go that high.

- He would be redlining the engine if he goes faster.

- Vehicle with axle ratio designed for towing is not towing right now, but has no more speed available.

- The driver might be looking for a left exit.

- Car trouble

- Obeying the law to the letter.

- Afraid of getting a ticket.

- Cargo came loose inside, and they are going slow until they get to the next exit.

- GPS-monitored employer-owned vehicle (driver gets docked pay for exceeding the speed limit).

- Drivers with enough points that they lose their licenses with another ticket.

- Cars designed in the 55 mph era that become unstable at higher speeds.

85 seems a bit fast to me, considering how American cars are designed.

[agentsteel53]

- Some of the little gas-saving cars can't go 85.

valid, there's a right lane for that.

- Some cars built in the 1980s don't have speedometers that go that high.

the lowest I've ever seen a speedometer go up to is 85.  Besides, you do not need to know your exact speed to keep up with traffic.

- He would be redlining the engine if he goes faster.

right lane.

- Vehicle with axle ratio designed for towing is not towing right now, but has no more speed available.

right lane.

- The driver might be looking for a left exit.

that's why freeways tend to be built with right exit only these days.  But yes, this is a legitimate reason to be going slower than the speed of traffic in the left lane.

- Car trouble

emergency flashers, and drive in the breakdown lane if necessary.

- Obeying the law to the letter.

the law says stay to the right except to pass.  hypocrites.

- Afraid of getting a ticket.

cowards.

- Cargo came loose inside, and they are going slow until they get to the next exit.

again, right lane.  Possible hazard lights.

- GPS-monitored employer-owned vehicle (driver gets docked pay for exceeding the speed limit).

right lane.  I'd say "find another employer" but in this economy, anything short of being forced to endure sodomy for 19 cents an hour is no grounds for quitting.

- Drivers with enough points that they lose their licenses with another ticket.

couldn't talk their way out of a ticket.  morons.  right lane, and learn that - when you are driving with the flow of traffic - 99% of cops are not looking to write a ticket until you talk them into it.

- Cars designed in the 55 mph era that become unstable at higher speeds.

right lane.

in short, the only legitimate reason to be going slowly in the left lane is to find your left exit, and hopefully get the hell off the road within a mile.  Driving slowly in the left lane from Baton Rouge to Sheboygan?  congrats, you're an idiot.  Take the bus.

[corco]

Cars were mandated to have 85 MPH speedometers from sometime in the 70s until the late 80s/early 90s, and after that the numbers just went up. You won't find a car designed after 1993 or so with a speedometer that tops out at less than 100 (there were several holdover models- the Jeep Cherokee had one through 1996, for instance, but at redesign in 97 the speedo went to 100- I can't think of any post-1997 cars with 85 MPH speedos, because in 1998 airbags became required which pretty much forced any holdouts to redesign their dashboards)

The speed/old car argument holds water if it's some old jalopy- if a car is cruising in the right lane and is an old piece of junk I'm not going to whine. The problem is, the cars are often newer cars that very definitely are capable of going at higher, safer speeds. There really aren't that many cars left on the roads from the 80s, especially on interstates.

If he's in the left lane, it's inexcusable. If he's in the right lane in a decent car, it's excusable but annoying.

[Troubleshooter]

- Some of the little gas-saving cars can't go 85.

valid, there's a right lane for that.

Note that this is NOT the law in all states. Some states have repealed as antiquated all laws that tell which side to pass on, except on two way two lane roads.

And the states that reserve the left lane for passing are shooting themselves in the feet, because they are seriously limiting the capacity of the highway by doing that. That's why the laws were repealed.

- The driver might be looking for a left exit.

that's why freeways tend to be built with right exit only these days.  But yes, this is a legitimate reason to be going slower than the speed of traffic in the left lane.

I agree that left hand exits are not a good idea. But we are stuck with them until the money is available to rebuild the interchanges.

- Obeying the law to the letter.

the law says stay to the right except to pass.  hypocrites.

Not in all states. In my state, this is required only where it is posted.

Note that a driver traveling in a "foreign" state might not be aware of such a difference in the laws.

- GPS-monitored employer-owned vehicle (driver gets docked pay for exceeding the speed limit).

right lane.  I'd say "find another employer" but in this economy, anything short of being forced to endure sodomy for 19 cents an hour is no grounds for quitting.[/quote]

It's not the employer as much as it is the employer's insurer that demands it.

- Drivers with enough points that they lose their licenses with another ticket.

couldn't talk their way out of a ticket.  morons.  right lane, and learn that - when you are driving with the flow of traffic - 99% of cops are not looking to write a ticket until you talk them into it.

Not here. The governments are looking for every dollar of revenue they can get, so they troll for suckers.

I have another one to add:

Drivers who are not good at merging tend to avoid the right lane to avoid merging situations.

[corco]

And the states that reserve the left lane for passing are shooting themselves in the feet, because they are seriously limiting the capacity of the highway by doing that. That's why the laws were repealed.

This...is an oversimplification. Pretty much every traffic engineering study ever shows conclusively that traffic moves more efficiently and more safely when the left lane is used as a passing lane. Sure, you can fit more cars into a smaller area by having them fill both lanes, but you can get more cars through that smaller area faster in a left lane for passing model. It's also important to keep in mind that accidents are a terrible use of capacity- if there's not a fast lane and a slow lane, the fast cars will inevitably hit the slow cars (not assigning blame there, that's just an inevitability- there will always be cars going both slower and faster than the flow of traffic), which slows things up for everyone.


If you're interested in such studies, I'd first direct you to "A behavioral theory of multi-lane traffic flow," published in 2002. The Transportation Research Board has also published several related studies, all of which find that ideally, the keep right except to pass model is by far the best one. The issue right now is in educating drivers to make sure they realize that this is by far the most safe and efficient way to drive.


For a real world example, the speed unlimited portions of the Autobahn are a good example- if the left lane were not reserved for passing only, traffic would move far less efficiently and deaths would skyrocket because cars going above the speed of the flow of traffic would have no idea which lane the slower cars were in and would therefore either have to slow down significantly or risk death.

What state has repealed a keep right except to pass law? I'd be very interested to know- several states have never had them and several have adopted them in the last 30 or so years (Colorado, for one), but who has repealed one?

[agentsteel53]

Note that this is NOT the law in all states. Some states have repealed as antiquated all laws that tell which side to pass on, except on two way two lane roads.

I don't consider those laws to be antiquated at all... when obeyed by both sets of parties (slow and fast drivers), they make driving a hell of a lot smoother.  Passing on the right is bad.  Being passed on the right is worse.

I agree that left hand exits are not a good idea. But we are stuck with them until the money is available to rebuild the interchanges.

but they are fairly rare, and most of the left-lane sitters are not looking for an exit as much as just camped out and oblivious to their surroundings.

Not in all states. In my state, this is required only where it is posted.

Note that a driver traveling in a "foreign" state might not be aware of such a difference in the laws.

yeah, a lot of states have random laws.  Isn't it Ohio where it's illegal to make a U-turn?  I try to obey the most sensible convex hull of all states laws.  I slow down and move over a lane in all states when I see an emergency vehicle on the shoulder.  I drive on the left side only when passing in all states.  etc.

It's not the employer as much as it is the employer's insurer that demands it.

the point remains the same.  Stay in the right lane and be glad you have a job.

Not here. The governments are looking for every dollar of revenue they can get, so they troll for suckers.

the suckiest suckers are those that drive fast through town.  There's no getting out of a 35 in a 20 down the main drag.  That's just you being dumb.  80 in a 65, unless you're the only car on the road, if you actually have to write the traffic department a check, then you got played.  Bad.

Drivers who are not good at merging tend to avoid the right lane to avoid merging situations.

maybe they should avoid public roads in general.

remember the first rule of driving: "if you cannot see the problem, you are the problem."

[mightyace]

Passing on the right is bad.  Being passed on the right is worse.

OK, if passing on the right is bad and/or illegal, then what do you recommend if some yutz is in the leftmost lane going 20 mph less than everyone else?