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.
Was that a rolling roadblock? Used when there is a need for a short-term full closure of the roadway.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: webny99 on October 09, 2023, 09:48:04 PM
It sounds effective but frustrating.
It certainly was.
Very similar to a regular old pilot car, except that it sounds like there was no real reason to need a pilot car.
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".
Quote from: DriverDave on October 10, 2023, 09:52:26 PM
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.
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
Quote from: jamess on October 11, 2023, 12:30:30 AM
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
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.
I've seen cops do the zigzag motion across the lanes when there was a flood in the road up ahead.
Quote from: DriverDave on October 10, 2023, 09:52:26 PM
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.
(https://images12.fotki.com/v1524/photos/4/42477/386401/ROLLINGROADBLOCK-vi.jpg)
Quote from: jamess on October 11, 2023, 12:30:30 AM
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.
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 12, 2023, 03:49:28 PM
Quote from: DriverDave on October 10, 2023, 09:52:26 PM
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.
(https://images12.fotki.com/v1524/photos/4/42477/386401/ROLLINGROADBLOCK-vi.jpg)
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.
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 12, 2023, 03:49:28 PM
Quote from: DriverDave on October 10, 2023, 09:52:26 PM
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.
(https://images12.fotki.com/v1524/photos/4/42477/386401/ROLLINGROADBLOCK-vi.jpg)
Left lane is for passing only?
Keep right except to pass?
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 12, 2023, 05:27:41 PM
Left lane is for passing only?
Keep right except to pass?
What about the speed limit law?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 12, 2023, 05:32:31 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 12, 2023, 05:27:41 PM
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).
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.
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.
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 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.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 12, 2023, 05:32:31 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 12, 2023, 05:27:41 PM
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.
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 13, 2023, 02:20:37 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 12, 2023, 05:32:31 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 12, 2023, 05:27:41 PM
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.
Quote from: DriverDave on October 12, 2023, 09:39:40 PM
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?
Quote from: DriverDave on October 12, 2023, 09:39:40 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: DriverDave on October 13, 2023, 01:14:48 PM
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
Quote from: DriverDave on October 13, 2023, 01:14:48 PM
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.
Quote from: Rothman on October 13, 2023, 06:47:51 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 13, 2023, 02:20:37 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 12, 2023, 05:32:31 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 12, 2023, 05:27:41 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 13, 2023, 05:29:01 PM
Quote from: Rothman on October 13, 2023, 06:47:51 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 13, 2023, 02:20:37 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 12, 2023, 05:32:31 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 12, 2023, 05:27:41 PM
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...?
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.
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.
Quote from: DriverDave on October 15, 2023, 07:01:01 PM
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.
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 (https://wsdot.wa.gov/publications/fulltext/Standards/psl/TC-100/182FwyRS.pdf) explaining in great detail how they do rolling slowdowns.
Quote from: DriverDave on October 15, 2023, 07:01:01 PM
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.
Quote from: jay8g on October 15, 2023, 07:23:36 PM
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.
Quote from: DriverDave on October 15, 2023, 07:01:01 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 16, 2023, 08:01:35 AM
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.
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 15, 2023, 09:00:09 AM
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.
Quote from: DriverDave on October 15, 2023, 07:01:01 PM
Forming an impassable line just to enforce the exact speed limit is excessive.
According to whom? Your personal opinion?
Quote from: DriverDave on October 15, 2023, 07:01:01 PM
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.
Quote from: DriverDave on October 15, 2023, 07:01:01 PM
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?
Quote from: kphoger on October 16, 2023, 03:05:53 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 15, 2023, 09:00:09 AM
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.)
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 16, 2023, 03:32:06 PM
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.