Enforced speed reductions

[kphoger]

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.

What traffic were they blocking?  The only traffic that could have been blocked by those state troopers was traffic already exceeding the speed limit, which is illegal.

Let me describe a different situation with a similar objection.  Imagine that there is a wealthy billionaire who donates a lot of money to left-wing causes, thereby drawing the ire of right-wing folk in the area.  One far-right activist goes to the billionaire's property, breaks through the security gate, drives up to the house, and vandalizes the front door of his house.  He posts pictures of his actions on social media, and other far-right nutjobs laud his 'accomplishment' and call for more to do likewise.  Someone in the group calls for people to storm the billionaire's office location at a certain time three days later (a Sunday, when all the offices there are closed) and do damage to that property.  The local police are alerted to the situation.  When Sunday comes, four patrol cars drive to the office building location to prevent such a storming.  In order to block these far-right nutjobs from gaining access to the building property, they park their patrol cars in front of both public driveways there—two patrol cars at each—blocking the way.  Someone complains that the officers are breaking the law, because Maryland statute explicitly prohibits "stopping, standing, or parking in front of public driveway [§ 21-1003]".  Do you agree that they shouldn't be allowed to do that?

[jeffandnicole]

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.

You're forgetting the speed limit is the maximum, not the minimum.  Cars in the right lane can go 45 mph.  In the center lanes 48-53 mph.  And in the right lane at 55 mph.  All legal.

Oh, that cop in the left lane.  Micropassing.  Give him an hour.  He'll finally complete his pass.

[DriverDave]

I agree with the point about how absurd the national 55 mph speed limit was. But how would the feds know the compliance levels? Did they have people running radar from overpasses measuring it? Otherwise the state could have just urged their cops to not give too many tickets in that case. I searched it, Maryland does have a keep right unless passing law, but I don't know what it was back in the 80s. Even if passing was illegal (you may have to exceed the speed limit slightly to pass a car going slightly under it), that's not the proper way to enforce it. If it's causing traffic to bunch up leading to more tailgating/making it harder to change lanes, they shouldn't have done it.

[kphoger]

Maryland does have a keep right unless passing law, but I don't know what it was back in the 80s.

There has been a general "right half of the roadway" law on the books, but the bill that explicitly restricts left lane use on Interstates has only been in effect since Sunday of last week.

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2023RS/fnotes/bil_0007/hb0957.pdf

[jeffandnicole]

I agree with the point about how absurd the national 55 mph speed limit was. But how would the feds know the compliance levels? Did they have people running radar from overpasses measuring it? Otherwise the state could have just urged their cops to not give too many tickets in that case. I searched it, Maryland does have a keep right unless passing law, but I don't know what it was back in the 80s. Even if passing was illegal (you may have to exceed the speed limit slightly to pass a car going slightly under it), that's not the proper way to enforce it. If it's causing traffic to bunch up leading to more tailgating/making it harder to change lanes, they shouldn't have done it.

States have various methods to monitor speeds.  A short series of in-ground loops, which were commonly used at traffic lights to detect traffic to cycle the light, can be used to determine speed in certain locations, as well as other methods. Figuring out speeds is hardly a difficult task - That's how 85th percentile speed determinations work.

You're arguing about something that occurred back in the late 1970's and early 1980's.  And yes, the feds can ask states to figure out compliance levels.

[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.

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

You might be waiting a while then... never once did I claim they got tickets. I'm merely stating, if there were left lane laws in place, they were violating them.

We break laws everyday. No one is saying we get tickets for it. But we all still do them, and are in fact, in violation.

[hbelkins]

This used to happen unofficially quite often in Kentucky between 1995-2001. Very often, a Kentucky State Police trooper would drive 65 mph on westbound I-64 between Lexington and Frankfort. Traffic would stack up behind him.

[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.

You might be waiting a while then... never once did I claim they got tickets. I'm merely stating, if there were left lane laws in place, they were violating them.

We break laws everyday. No one is saying we get tickets for it. But we all still do them, and are in fact, in violation.

And so...?

[1995hoo]

What I think certain people are overlooking is that the cops were doing that to perform something that would have been considered a law enforcement function. While I have not done any research to confirm this, I'm reasonably certain that every state has some sort of law on the books that allows the police (and other law enforcement/emergency response) to do things that would technically violate some other law if they do it in the course of carrying out a law enforcement function—which, in turn, means that action is not considered a violation of law when done in that context. Consider police pursuit, for example. Are you going to complain that an arrest following a high-speed chase is an invalid arrest because the cop violated the law by exceeding the speed limit during the chase? If you do make that argument, you'll be laughed out of court. Fire trucks and ambulances sometimes drive on the wrong side of the road, or go straight out of turn-only lanes, to get around stopped traffic. Guess they'd better cut that out and let that house burn down so they don't bother the people who would say they're breaking the law.

[DriverDave]

We're talking only traffic enforcement though. Forming an impassable line just to enforce the exact speed limit is excessive. What about the clear road it leaves ahead of them? Anyone ahead of that can then go as fast as they want. All it's doing is creating an unnecessary backlog behind it, which is more unsafe than going over as you said, an absurdly low limit. It seems more of a "preserve our highway funds" operation than a police one.

[Rothman]

We're talking only traffic enforcement though. Forming an impassable line just to enforce the exact speed limit is excessive. What about the clear road it leaves ahead of them? Anyone ahead of that can then go as fast as they want. All it's doing is creating an unnecessary backlog behind it, which is more unsafe than going over as you said, an absurdly low limit. It seems more of a "preserve our highway funds" operation than a police one.

Not sure traffic violations fund highway improvements in all states.

[jay8g]

The original discussion was about doing rolling slowdowns for construction or emergency purposes, not about doing so for speed limit enforcement in ordinary circumstances. Apart from the Maryland thing, I can't imagine formal rolling slowdown-type things being used for regular speed enforcement as standard practice. Anyways, if ticket revenue was the goal, this would be the exact wrong way to go about it, since you can't ticket drivers who are being forced to go at or under the speed limit.

Back to the original topic, WSDOT has a standard traffic control plan explaining in great detail how they do rolling slowdowns.

[jeffandnicole]

We're talking only traffic enforcement though. Forming an impassable line just to enforce the exact speed limit is excessive. What about the clear road it leaves ahead of them? Anyone ahead of that can then go as fast as they want. All it's doing is creating an unnecessary backlog behind it, which is more unsafe than going over as you said, an absurdly low limit. It seems more of a "preserve our highway funds" operation than a police one.

The original discussion was about doing rolling slowdowns for construction or emergency purposes, not about doing so for speed limit enforcement in ordinary circumstances. Apart from the Maryland thing, I can't imagine formal rolling slowdown-type things being used for regular speed enforcement as standard practice. Anyways, if ticket revenue was the goal, this would be the exact wrong way to go about it, since you can't ticket drivers who are being forced to go at or under the speed limit.

This secondary discussion was about the NMSL. And if you didn't live during this time, you probably don't understand the purpose behind trying to enforce the 55 limit.  The limit, especially at first, was mandated and expected to be adhered to in order to keep federal funding of transportation projects.  So states had to figure out what worked best to keep people driving at 55 mph.

Later on, both motorists and the states had enough of it.  They had to maintain 55 mph limits, but enforcement became a bit laxed, both on the state and federal levels.

If you've only lived in the era of 70, 75, and 80 mph limits, you have no idea.

[1995hoo]

We're talking only traffic enforcement though. Forming an impassable line just to enforce the exact speed limit is excessive. What about the clear road it leaves ahead of them? Anyone ahead of that can then go as fast as they want. All it's doing is creating an unnecessary backlog behind it, which is more unsafe than going over as you said, an absurdly low limit. It seems more of a "preserve our highway funds" operation than a police one.

Aside from what jeffandnicole said, all of which I agree with, a law enforcement function is a law enforcement function. You're trying to draw an arbitrary line based on your own opinion as to what you think is important enough. Random motorists do not get to decide what is a valid enforcement function and what is not. Otherwise it quickly becomes unworkable.

[roadman65]

Well two communities in Florida use the ticket method to scare people to do 35 within city limits. Used to be three, but the local law enforcement was forced to dismantle its force and let the County Sheriff's Office assume jurisdiction.

All these are on US 301. However one received a bypass of 70 mph, but I'm sure the cops still cite people for going above it at that city.

[SilverMustang2011]

Well two communities in Florida use the ticket method to scare people to do 35 within city limits. Used to be three, but the local law enforcement was forced to dismantle its force and let the County Sheriff's Office assume jurisdiction.

All these are on US 301. However one received a bypass of 70 mph, but I'm sure the cops still cite people for going above it at that city.

Having driven Starke's 70 MPH Bypass several times, I mainly see cops on the North end where there's an emergency crossover ramp and they're easy to spot. People go 75-80 on the rest of the bypass. The other town, Lawtey, has cops stationed on the North end of town all the time so people are usually smart enough to go slow through there.

[kphoger]

What I think certain people are overlooking is that the cops were doing that to perform something that would have been considered a law enforcement function. While I have not done any research to confirm this, I'm reasonably certain that every state has some sort of law on the books that allows the police (and other law enforcement/emergency response) to do things that would technically violate some other law if they do it in the course of carrying out a law enforcement function—which, in turn, means that action is not considered a violation of law when done in that context.

I pursued that line of thinking for a little while earlier, just to see if the left lane law in Maryland had an explicit carve-out for police engaged in official business.  According to Maryland state law, specific carve-outs for police officers exist for the following:  (1) parking or standing;  (2) stoplights, stop signs, and yield signs;  (3) speed limits;  (4) turn restrictions.  The police are only permitted by statute to break such traffic laws if they are (a) responding to an emergency call or a fire alarm call, or actively in pursuit;  and (b) sounding their siren, and also flashing their lights if equipped.

No legal carve-out that I can find having to do with impeding the left lane.

Forming an impassable line just to enforce the exact speed limit is excessive.

According to whom?  Your personal opinion?

What about the clear road it leaves ahead of them? Anyone ahead of that can then go as fast as they want.

Unless another officer pulls them over.  Have you ever tried to argue your way out of a speeding ticket by saying "the other guy was going even faster"?  I've heard it doesn't work very well.

All it's doing is creating an unnecessary backlog behind it, which is more unsafe than going over

Maybe, maybe not.  Do you have statistics to back up your claim that such a backlog is more dangerous than speeding?

[1995hoo]

What I think certain people are overlooking is that the cops were doing that to perform something that would have been considered a law enforcement function. While I have not done any research to confirm this, I'm reasonably certain that every state has some sort of law on the books that allows the police (and other law enforcement/emergency response) to do things that would technically violate some other law if they do it in the course of carrying out a law enforcement function—which, in turn, means that action is not considered a violation of law when done in that context.

I pursued that line of thinking for a little while earlier, just to see if the left lane law in Maryland had an explicit carve-out for police engaged in official business.  According to Maryland state law, specific carve-outs for police officers exist for the following:  (1) parking or standing;  (2) stoplights, stop signs, and yield signs;  (3) speed limits;  (4) turn restrictions.  The police are only permitted by statute to break such traffic laws if they are (a) responding to an emergency call or a fire alarm call, or actively in pursuit;  and (b) sounding their siren, and also flashing their lights if equipped.

No legal carve-out that I can find having to do with impeding the left lane.

....

On the other hand, to they extent they were enforcing the speed limit, maybe it fell within the carve-out you mentioned. (I don't know. I'm speculating.)

[kphoger]

On the other hand, to they extent they were enforcing the speed limit, maybe it fell within the carve-out you mentioned. (I don't know. I'm speculating.)

The carve-out I referred to specifically exempts them from having to obey the speed limit under those circumstances—not from obeying any and all traffic laws while enforcing the speed limit.