New speed limit law fines slow drivers

[silverback1065]

This is going into effect July 1st in Indiana, I'm curious, what is everyone's opinion of this?  Do any other states have this law?  I'll post what I think later in the thread. 
http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/05/26/new-indiana-law-requires-slower-drivers-move-right-lane/27959911/

[Mr. Matté]

What if I have a religious objection to driving fast in the left lane?

[corco]

Many states have a similar type of law on the books. This behavior is why the Germans can drive 200 km/h on the autobahn and everybody doesn't die. It's just good sense.

I don't like how it is portrayed in the article though. Keeping right and violating the speed limit are two separate concepts. Saying that drivers going the speed limit should not have to move right is like saying drivers going the speed limit should not have to comply with stop signs- they're different laws with different purposes. Speed limit is one of many tools used to promote safe driving and shouldn't sit on its own pedestal over other equally important laws.

[Henry]

It's one thing to get a ticket for driving too fast, but this is ridiculous!

[silverback1065]

Many states have a similar type of law on the books. This behavior is why the Germans can drive 200 km/h on the autobahn and everybody doesn't die. It's just good sense.

I don't like how it is portrayed in the article though. Keeping right and violating the speed limit are two separate concepts. Saying that drivers going the speed limit should not have to move right is like saying drivers going the speed limit should not have to comply with stop signs- they're different laws with different purposes. Speed limit is one of many tools used to promote safe driving and shouldn't sit on its own pedestal over other equally important laws.

How is this two separate concepts though, don't speed limits govern ALL lanes on a road in ALL situations? Wouldn't this invalidate speed limits as a whole?  Or do speed limits only apply to the right lane(s)?  Why have speed limits at all if you can still get a ticket for supposedly following the law?  If this is such a problem, should speed limits be raised? I'm not trolling, I'm trying to understand the other side on this issue.

[trafficsignal]

Many states have a similar type of law on the books. This behavior is why the Germans can drive 200 km/h on the autobahn and everybody doesn't die. It's just good sense.

I don't like how it is portrayed in the article though. Keeping right and violating the speed limit are two separate concepts. Saying that drivers going the speed limit should not have to move right is like saying drivers going the speed limit should not have to comply with stop signs- they're different laws with different purposes. Speed limit is one of many tools used to promote safe driving and shouldn't sit on its own pedestal over other equally important laws.

How is this two separate concepts though, don't speed limits govern ALL lanes on a road in ALL situations? Wouldn't this invalidate speed limits as a whole?  Or do speed limits only apply to the right lane(s)?  Why have speed limits at all if you can still get a ticket for supposedly following the law?  If this is such a problem, should speed limits be raised? I'm not trolling, I'm trying to understand the other side on this issue.

There is already a law in place telling people what the "safe" speed is, but now there is one telling people the "safe" lane in which to drive.

In practice, I doubt a police officer will ever ticket anyone for this, but its also rare to get a ticket for speeding if you're within 5 of the speed limit.  Its just on the books to facilitate better traffic flow (at least in theory).

[silverback1065]

What if I have a religious objection to driving fast in the left lane?

[silverback1065]

Many states have a similar type of law on the books. This behavior is why the Germans can drive 200 km/h on the autobahn and everybody doesn't die. It's just good sense.

I don't like how it is portrayed in the article though. Keeping right and violating the speed limit are two separate concepts. Saying that drivers going the speed limit should not have to move right is like saying drivers going the speed limit should not have to comply with stop signs- they're different laws with different purposes. Speed limit is one of many tools used to promote safe driving and shouldn't sit on its own pedestal over other equally important laws.

How is this two separate concepts though, don't speed limits govern ALL lanes on a road in ALL situations? Wouldn't this invalidate speed limits as a whole?  Or do speed limits only apply to the right lane(s)?  Why have speed limits at all if you can still get a ticket for supposedly following the law?  If this is such a problem, should speed limits be raised? I'm not trolling, I'm trying to understand the other side on this issue.

There is already a law in place telling people what the "safe" speed is, but now there is one telling people the "safe" lane in which to drive.

In practice, I doubt a police officer will ever ticket anyone for this, but its also rare to get a ticket for speeding if you're within 5 of the speed limit.  Its just on the books to facilitate better traffic flow (at least in theory).

I agree, this is likely to be rarely in force

[jakeroot]

Many states have a similar type of law on the books. This behavior is why the Germans can drive 200 km/h on the autobahn and everybody doesn't die. It's just good sense.

I don't like how it is portrayed in the article though. Keeping right and violating the speed limit are two separate concepts. Saying that drivers going the speed limit should not have to move right is like saying drivers going the speed limit should not have to comply with stop signs- they're different laws with different purposes. Speed limit is one of many tools used to promote safe driving and shouldn't sit on its own pedestal over other equally important laws.

How is this two separate concepts though, don't speed limits govern ALL lanes on a road in ALL situations? Wouldn't this invalidate speed limits as a whole?  Or do speed limits only apply to the right lane(s)?  Why have speed limits at all if you can still get a ticket for supposedly following the law?  If this is such a problem, should speed limits be raised? I'm not trolling, I'm trying to understand the other side on this issue.

There is already a law in place telling people what the "safe" speed is, but now there is one telling people the "safe" lane in which to drive.

In practice, I doubt a police officer will ever ticket anyone for this, but its also rare to get a ticket for speeding if you're within 5 of the speed limit.  Its just on the books to facilitate better traffic flow (at least in theory).

Left lane camping causes road rage and gets people pissed off. Pissed off drivers do stupid things, and people have been seriously hurt or even killed because of a driver's road rage.

One easy way to cut down on road rage is allow drivers to not be impeded by other drivers, and their opinions on what the safe speed is. Sure, the speeders might travel at ludicrous speed, but they'll get their just deserts.

[corco]

Many states have a similar type of law on the books. This behavior is why the Germans can drive 200 km/h on the autobahn and everybody doesn't die. It's just good sense.

I don't like how it is portrayed in the article though. Keeping right and violating the speed limit are two separate concepts. Saying that drivers going the speed limit should not have to move right is like saying drivers going the speed limit should not have to comply with stop signs- they're different laws with different purposes. Speed limit is one of many tools used to promote safe driving and shouldn't sit on its own pedestal over other equally important laws.

How is this two separate concepts though, don't speed limits govern ALL lanes on a road in ALL situations? Wouldn't this invalidate speed limits as a whole?  Or do speed limits only apply to the right lane(s)?  Why have speed limits at all if you can still get a ticket for supposedly following the law?  If this is such a problem, should speed limits be raised? I'm not trolling, I'm trying to understand the other side on this issue.

No, you can still get a ticket for speeding in the left lane, but regardless of your driving speed you should keep right unless passing. Speed limit has no bearing on the latter concept.

[silverback1065]

I feel like very few drivers understand the whole "keep right except to pass" concept, they just see a lane and ride it, which can be very annoying especially in rural areas!

[Joe The Dragon]

Many states have a similar type of law on the books. This behavior is why the Germans can drive 200 km/h on the autobahn and everybody doesn't die. It's just good sense.

I don't like how it is portrayed in the article though. Keeping right and violating the speed limit are two separate concepts. Saying that drivers going the speed limit should not have to move right is like saying drivers going the speed limit should not have to comply with stop signs- they're different laws with different purposes. Speed limit is one of many tools used to promote safe driving and shouldn't sit on its own pedestal over other equally important laws.

Can you get a ticket for speeding and going to slow at the same time and if so What will the court say when you ask the judge HOW CAN I BOTH SPEEDING AND GOING TO SLOW AT THE SAME TIME?

[corco]

Many states have a similar type of law on the books. This behavior is why the Germans can drive 200 km/h on the autobahn and everybody doesn't die. It's just good sense.

I don't like how it is portrayed in the article though. Keeping right and violating the speed limit are two separate concepts. Saying that drivers going the speed limit should not have to move right is like saying drivers going the speed limit should not have to comply with stop signs- they're different laws with different purposes. Speed limit is one of many tools used to promote safe driving and shouldn't sit on its own pedestal over other equally important laws.

Can you get a ticket for speeding and going to slow at the same time and if so What will the court say when you ask the judge HOW CAN I BOTH SPEEDING AND GOING TO SLOW AT THE SAME TIME?

It's not a ticket for going too slow though- it's a ticket for not passing in the passing lane. You could be going 100 mph with nobody on your right (not passing anybody) and be in violation of this law. It has nothing to do with speed.

[corco]

I feel like very few drivers understand the whole "keep right except to pass" concept, they just see a lane and ride it, which can be very annoying especially in rural areas!

Which it sounds like is why this law was passed, to help people understand that this is the law and good driving behavior.

[silverback1065]

Many states have a similar type of law on the books. This behavior is why the Germans can drive 200 km/h on the autobahn and everybody doesn't die. It's just good sense.

I don't like how it is portrayed in the article though. Keeping right and violating the speed limit are two separate concepts. Saying that drivers going the speed limit should not have to move right is like saying drivers going the speed limit should not have to comply with stop signs- they're different laws with different purposes. Speed limit is one of many tools used to promote safe driving and shouldn't sit on its own pedestal over other equally important laws.

Can you get a ticket for speeding and going to slow at the same time and if so What will the court say when you ask the judge HOW CAN I BOTH SPEEDING AND GOING TO SLOW AT THE SAME TIME?

It's not a ticket for going too slow though- it's a ticket for not passing in the passing lane. You could be going 100 mph with nobody on your right (not passing anybody) and be in violation of this law. It has nothing to do with speed.

That clarifies everything for me, I see how that article was misleading now, but that's what it's been painted as in the media, so I think most people are confused.

[US 41]

Many states have a similar type of law on the books. This behavior is why the Germans can drive 200 km/h on the autobahn and everybody doesn't die. It's just good sense.

I don't like how it is portrayed in the article though. Keeping right and violating the speed limit are two separate concepts. Saying that drivers going the speed limit should not have to move right is like saying drivers going the speed limit should not have to comply with stop signs- they're different laws with different purposes. Speed limit is one of many tools used to promote safe driving and shouldn't sit on its own pedestal over other equally important laws.

Can you get a ticket for speeding and going to slow at the same time and if so What will the court say when you ask the judge HOW CAN I BOTH SPEEDING AND GOING TO SLOW AT THE SAME TIME?

It's not a ticket for going too slow though- it's a ticket for not passing in the passing lane. You could be going 100 mph with nobody on your right (not passing anybody) and be in violation of this law. It has nothing to do with speed.

That clarifies everything for me, I see how that article was misleading now, but that's what it's been painted as in the media, so I think most people are confused.

I remember seeing signs like this when I drove I-40 in Texas. They said something along the lines of "Keep right except to pass" or "Left lane for passing only".

[silverback1065]

Many states have a similar type of law on the books. This behavior is why the Germans can drive 200 km/h on the autobahn and everybody doesn't die. It's just good sense.

I don't like how it is portrayed in the article though. Keeping right and violating the speed limit are two separate concepts. Saying that drivers going the speed limit should not have to move right is like saying drivers going the speed limit should not have to comply with stop signs- they're different laws with different purposes. Speed limit is one of many tools used to promote safe driving and shouldn't sit on its own pedestal over other equally important laws.

Can you get a ticket for speeding and going to slow at the same time and if so What will the court say when you ask the judge HOW CAN I BOTH SPEEDING AND GOING TO SLOW AT THE SAME TIME?

It's not a ticket for going too slow though- it's a ticket for not passing in the passing lane. You could be going 100 mph with nobody on your right (not passing anybody) and be in violation of this law. It has nothing to do with speed.

That clarifies everything for me, I see how that article was misleading now, but that's what it's been painted as in the media, so I think most people are confused.

I remember seeing signs like this when I drove I-40 in Texas. They said something along the lines of "Keep right except to pass" or "Left lane for passing only".

I saw the same signs ("Keep right except to pass") on 37 today going to bloomington there should be more of them honestly.

[Molandfreak]

"State law: Keep right except to pass. $500 fine." does a lot more than just "Keep right except to pass." Every state should have a law like this.

[sipes23]

I feel like very few drivers understand the whole "keep right except to pass" concept, they just see a lane and ride it, which can be very annoying especially in rural areas!

Very. In really rural areas, I can just pass on the fail side.

Worse is when the area is starting to pick up traffic volume, and people get creative notions of passing. So like when there's a large gap between trucks, someone going just a hair faster than the leading truck stays in the left because they're "passing". No, what you're doing is making a train of passenger cars who would *very much* like to be going faster yet. I know this stuff is highly related to judgement and very subjective, but it feels much more common in slightly higher traffic areas.

[02 Park Ave]

[quote author=silverback1065 link=topic=15647.msg2067983#msg2067983 date=1433183159

Worse is when the area is starting to pick up traffic volume, and people get creative notions of passing. So like when there's a large gap between trucks, someone going just a hair faster than the leading truck stays in the left because they're "passing". No, what you're doing is making a train of passenger cars who would *very much* like to be going faster yet. I know this stuff is highly related to judgement and very subjective, but it feels much more common in slightly higher traffic areas.

This is a very common situation on the East-West Toll Road.  How would this new law apply?

I wonder how it would work on the Frank Borman Expressway.

[Brandon]

It's one thing to get a ticket for driving too fast, but this is ridiculous!

No, it's not.  It's call obstructing traffic, and was used at least once during the 55 mph years in Michigan on a driver who camped out in the left lane at 55 mph.

Friends don't let friends left lane hog.

[Ned Weasel]

Left lane camping causes road rage and gets people pissed off. Pissed off drivers do stupid things, and people have been seriously hurt or even killed because of a driver's road rage.

I'm not passing judgment on left lane laws (I can see arguments both for and against them), but this is a horrible justification for left lane laws.  If slow drivers in the left lane are becoming victims of road rage, then banning slow driving in the left lane in order to reduce road rage is simply legislating the victims' actions in order to achieve desired results from the perpetrators. 

One easy way to cut down on road rage is allow drivers to not be impeded by other drivers, and their opinions on what the safe speed is.

What about violence committed by someone (or some group) who was offended by someone's speech or artistic expression?  Should we cut down on violence by allowing people not to be offended?  Again, there are probably some good reasons for left lane laws, but this is not one of them.

Sure, the speeders might travel at ludicrous speed, but they'll get their just deserts.

Does a speeding ticket mean as much to a rich person as it would to someone struggling to afford car payments?  It's a fallacy to assume the system is just, no matter how one decides to sugar-coat it.

[PurdueBill]

It is not up to individual motorists to enforce the speed limit.  The ones who drive at or just below the limit in the left lane to prove a point and block others from traveling at the prevailing speed are causing a hazard that would not exist without them.  Move over, pass, and move back. 

Traveling at any speed, above or below the posted limit, in the left lane without passing anyone is what the law targets. 

The media articles with headlines "watch out law-abiding motorists!" are deceiving and misleading.  They make good click-bait and teases for the story after the commercial, though.

[Avalanchez71]

Tennessee has a similar law, however, I argue that it ends at the speed limit.  The courts haven't ruled on speeds over the limit that I am aware of.  However, the logic is that the speed limit is the speed limit and one should not drive faster.  The fine in TN is nowhere near $500 and it is not defined in the same manner.  The law really relates to impeding traffic and exercising due care.

[JREwing78]

So drive the speed limit, but do it in the right lane, except to pass.

I honestly don't understand the confusion here, or the idea that "I can drive like a jackass as much as I want, as long as I'm obeying the speed limit!"