Speeding

[J N Winkler]

So, this can set up a situation where you're breaking the law no matter what you do.  i.e. You're doing the speed limit but have 10 cars behind you.  So, you're nailed for holding up traffic.  Or, you speed up and get nailed for speeding.

NO FAIR!!!!!!!!

As Deanej points out, you can pull over and let them pass.  "DELAY OF X VEHICLES ILLEGAL" signing is provided only where there are actually turnouts that can be used for stopping.  The legal Catch-22 situation you describe doesn't arise.

Such a rule wouldn't work on rural TN roads as many of them have no shoulders.

It would work perfectly fine if Tennessee DOT actually built turnouts, improved shoulders, passing lanes and other aids to safe operation on two-lane rural highways.  But that would require money and probably also some changes in engineering policy since turnouts are seen as a largely Western thing.

Why should I have to pull over if 10 people behind me want to break the law?  Isn't that aiding and abetting a crime?

You cannot be charged with aiding and abetting because you are not acting as an agent of the people behind you who want to cruise above the speed limit.  You are not in communication with those people, so it is impossible to show that you pulled over because you wanted or expected them to break the law.

Proving a charge of aiding and abetting requires much more than a mere demonstration that your actions made it more convenient for someone else to break the law.

[mightyace]

Why should I have to pull over if 10 people behind me want to break the law?  Isn't that aiding and abetting a crime?

You cannot be charged with aiding and abetting because you are not acting as an agent of the people behind you who want to cruise above the speed limit.  You are not in communication with those people, so it is impossible to show that you pulled over because you wanted or expected them to break the law.

Proving a charge of aiding and abetting requires much more than a mere demonstration that your actions made it more convenient for someone else to break the law.

But, if I'm going the legal limit and cars are piled up behind me, then at least some of them want to speed.  If not, they wouldn't be on my bumper.

Please, someone, tell me why going the speed limit on a two lane road should be a crime under any circumstances. Because, if I'm doing the legal limit, the only way they can get in front of me is to speed.  Ergo, the number of cars behind me should not matter.

EDIT:
I know some of you may say, I'd be impeding the flow of traffic.  But, again, if I'm going the legal limit, I'm not impeding the flow of traffic a legal speeds.

Also, I'm only applying this to two lane roads (single lane in each direction.)

EDIT 2:
I'm also looking at this strictly from a legal basis.  If you want to say I SHOULD move over for courtesy or safety, that's another story.  I may still disagree, but maybe not...

[Bickendan]

If I want to speed on a two lane but you're ahead of me only doing limit, the most I'll do is grumble. I'll deal with it. It's annoying, but you're obeying the law and I respect that.

If you're below the limit, even if only by 5 mph, pull over and let me by.

[mightyace]

^^^

That's how I try to operate.  I like to say I never speed, but that would not be honest.

And, I would do just as Bickenden does.  Stew if they're doing the limit or faster, but please get out of the way if you're slower.

[agentsteel53]

I will speed up reasonably to keep traffic flowing.  If the speed limit is 70, and a truck is doing 65 and I'm passing him doing 77 ... if you're coming up behind me doing 83, I will speed up to 83.

if you're coming up behind me doing 100; sorry but you're out of luck.  you get 83 out of me.  maybe 90 if I'm feeling generous.

if you're coming up behind me doing 150, I will slow down to 65 just to fuck with you.  100 may very well be reasonable given the traffic level.  Any traffic level above 'nobody for miles' and 150 is patently stupid.

[J N Winkler]

But, if I'm going the legal limit and cars are piled up behind me, then at least some of them want to speed.  If not, they wouldn't be on my bumper.

One does not necessarily follow from the other.  You do not have to assume that they do want to speed and a prosecutor can't argue that you should so assume.  There are many reasons other than a desire to speed which might result in traffic riding your bumper when you are driving the speed limit.  Because you are not in communication with any of the following drivers, you can't make assumptions about which reasons might be operative.  Some of the following drivers might want to drive at the speed limit but be in front.  Others might be so habituated to following other cars in city traffic that when they find themselves on the open highway, they look for a car to tailgate.  Pulling over to let the following cars pass is no guarantee that any of them will drive faster.  In fact, one of the hazards of using turnouts is finding yourself following a slower vehicle which you allowed to pass.

If your theory that turning out equals aiding and abetting were to be accepted as gospel, then to escape legal jeopardy drivers would have to stay in front of a multi-car platoon in order to prevent any of the following cars from driving faster than the speed limit.  This is absurd, unsafe, and fundamentally inconsistent with defensive driving.

Please, someone, tell me why going the speed limit on a two lane road should be a crime under any circumstances.

It is not the speed that is being criminalized:  it is the participation in unsafe platoon formation.  You do not have the right to drive at the speed limit through stop signs, red lights, active railroad crossings, etc. and mandatory use of turnouts is conceptually similar to these conditions.

Because, if I'm doing the legal limit, the only way they can get in front of me is to speed.  Ergo, the number of cars behind me should not matter.

But the legality or otherwise of the speeds they choose as they maneuver around you is not your concern, legally speaking.  That is between them and the police (or between them and God, if something goes terribly wrong).

I know some of you may say, I'd be impeding the flow of traffic.  But, again, if I'm going the legal limit, I'm not impeding the flow of traffic at legal speeds.

Perhaps not, but you are participating in an unsafe platoon and this can be criminalized since it is an action under your control.  I don't really have a problem with it being unlawful to delay vehicles when appropriate measures of relief (such as turnouts) are provided.  If it were a general rule of the road, as opposed to a special rule applying to lengths of highway for which turnouts have been provided, then yes, I would have a major problem with it, because in the absence of legal specialization (such as dedication to a particular class of vehicle) the highways have to be open to all, including slow-moving traffic.

Also, I'm only applying this to two lane roads (single lane in each direction.

I understood this to be the case.  On freeways it is sometimes suggested that when two vehicles are carrying out competing overtakes in the same lane and the slower vehicle is in front, the slower vehicle should speed up to avoid undue delay to the following faster vehicle, even if it means the slower driver has to increase his or her excess above the speed limit.  I do not agree with this argument.  If the slower driver does speed up, it is a courtesy to the faster driver, not something to be expected as of right.

Part of the justification for having a special rule for two-lane highways with turnouts versus freeways and the like is that traffic operations on rural two-lanes, and particularly on the kinds of roads where turnouts are provided, are very different.  Operating speeds are typically lower, often as a result of the same topographical constraints which prevent more competent improvements (such as full passing lanes) being provided.  LOS is defined by time spent following other vehicles rather than by volume/capacity ratio per se.  Again, because of topographical constraint, there is often a wide spread in speeds (some drivers have more of an appetite for speed through curves than others) with most of the distribution lying under the speed limit.  Turnouts and delay bans, if observed and enforced, have the potential to ease driving without the need to remove whole mountainsides to provide passing lanes.

[agentsteel53]

I've noticed the correlation that people who are driving slowly are some of the least likely to use a turnout.  they seem to believe that their right to do 15 mph below the limit is inalienable.

if someone is coming up behind me on a mountain road doing 90 because they have a motorcycle or a Z3, I'll use the next turnout even if I myself am attempting to take the curves doing 15 over the limit.

[NE2]

That is between them and the police (or between them and God, if something goes terribly wrong).

We found out on May 21 that no such thing will go terribly wrong.

[agentsteel53]

We found out on May 21 that no such thing will go terribly wrong.

okay, I'll bite.  what happened on May 21? 

[NE2]

Nothing, to the embarrassment of one Harold Camping.

[J N Winkler]

I've noticed the correlation that people who are driving slowly are some of the least likely to use a turnout.  they seem to believe that their right to do 15 mph below the limit is inalienable.

Yes, I have noticed the same thing.  I have expounded (at, it must be said, boring length) on the theoretical arguments in favor of turnouts and the associated delay bans, but in practice I wonder if they really work.  I have not managed to find any studies which looked into whether turnouts really improve traffic operation, and I can see some potential for them to make things worse.  For example, if there are turnouts and signs indicating that they must be used, and a really slow car in front is not using them, I'd expect the presence of the signs and turnouts to set the stage for a road-rage incident which might not happen if there were not this apparent legal expectation that slower vehicles should get out of the way.

[myosh_tino]

It does not appear that Nevada has a law requiring passing one car at a time. However, Nevada made the "cannot hold up 5 or more vehicles" rule into law in 2001

California has had a law like this on the books for quite a long time (as long as I've been driving).  In California, if there are 5 or more vehicles behind you on a two-lane highway, you are supposed to pull over at the next turnout to allow everyone to pass.  If I'm not mistaken, you cannot be ticketed for impeding unless the cop sees you not using a designated turnout.

[Alps]

Depends on the state - in some places local drivers happily pull over to let you speed on by, because they have nowhere to go and take their time, whereas you have 14 more hours of daylight and 13.95 more hours of scheduled driving (.05 hours to refuel).

[agentsteel53]

Nothing, to the embarrassment of one Harold Camping.

how quickly I forget.  I hadn't thought of that guy since, oh about May 20th.

[agentsteel53]

Yes, I have noticed the same thing.  I have expounded (at, it must be said, boring length) on the theoretical arguments in favor of turnouts and the associated delay bans, but in practice I wonder if they really work.  I have not managed to find any studies which looked into whether turnouts really improve traffic operation, and I can see some potential for them to make things worse.  For example, if there are turnouts and signs indicating that they must be used, and a really slow car in front is not using them, I'd expect the presence of the signs and turnouts to set the stage for a road-rage incident which might not happen if there were not this apparent legal expectation that slower vehicles should get out of the way.

California's "vehicles must use turnouts" sign even has on it the appropriate citation of the Civil Vehicular Code!  I believe it's the only sign in CA's MUTCD that has that legend - as if to say "yes, this really is the law, you jackass - now get out of the way".

[agentsteel53]

they have nowhere to go

then why go anywhere?  stop wasting gasoline and stay home and have a beer.

[corco]

Idaho has a similar law- 3 cars behind you and you must pull off. This is well marked and slow vehicle turnouts are clearly indicated (especially along Idaho 55 and US-95).

As far as the speeding/pull over debate, it bothers me that people assume that the speeding law is more important than other laws. People use this as justification for not keeping right except to pass, too.

Why is the legal speed law more important than any other law? Why does the legal speed law take precedence over other laws? Too much of bad driving is cloaked in "Well, I'm going the speed limit."

It's not to the benefit of traffic safety to have large clumps of cars traveling together- if you have three cars you're much more likely to have a multi-car collision than if you have one car. Laws that try to disperse those clumps have just as much merit to safety as laws that regulate maximum speed. If you're on a rural stretch of road (which is usually where these pullouts apply), there's plenty of asphalt for two cars to share without having to be within 50 feet of each other.

[Duke87]

Why should I have to pull over if 10 people behind me want to break the law?  Isn't that aiding and abetting a crime?

No, because you have done nothing to encourage or assist anyone to break the law. You have merely declined to actively prevent them from doing so. If someone is trying to rob a bank, you have not committed a crime if you don't tackle them and try to stop them. If someone is trying to speed, you have not committed a crime if you don't impede their progress.

Please, someone, tell me why going the speed limit on a two lane road should be a crime under any circumstances. Because, if I'm doing the legal limit, the only way they can get in front of me is to speed.  Ergo, the number of cars behind me should not matter.

I believe the laws in question more have in mind vehicles which are traveling considerably under the speed limit. Construction vehicles, large trucks on steep hills, trailers, etc.

[deathtopumpkins]

Why is the legal speed law more important than any other law? Why does the legal speed law take precedence over other laws? Too much of bad driving is cloaked in "Well, I'm going the speed limit."

Because of how heavily this law is enforced. I'm pretty sure that speeding is probably the #1 most-issued traffic ticket, and everyone knows that municipalities love giving them out for revenue purposes. Additionally, speeding is easy to prove, unlike most other driving laws, and thus much easier to convict for.

If speed enforcement wasn't so tight, people wouldn't be so worried about doing the speed limit.

[english si]

That is between them and the police (or between them and God, if something goes terribly wrong).

We found out on May 21 that no such thing will go terribly wrong.

1)I'm sure the idiom used about dying is available in America - it's certainly pretty obvious what is being meant here. May 21 didn't tell us that we don't die.
2)One crackpot who got a load of devoted followers being proved wrong disproves God's existence? Sounds like a huge massive logical leap, a blind bit of dogmatic faith - even if you didn't pick up the idiom, you come across as stupid.
3)If Harold Camping giving a false prediction is so paradigm changing, how come you take it back to May 21, and not 1994 when he first did something similar?

they have nowhere to go

then why go anywhere?  stop wasting gasoline and stay home and have a beer.

While staying home and having a beer is a good thing, are you a roadgeek if you don't understand using roads for pleasure? That said, doing it and annoying everyone by holding them up isn't a good thing.

There's a road near me that was built with ~20' lanes so that it is cheaper than having a divided highway, or even a undivided 4-lane road, but still has easy overtaking. You often get cars going 55 (speed limit 60, natural speed for the road a bit more than 60) sitting near to the centre line, blocking the overtaking that the road is meant to encourage. I'm wondering which came first - the national decline in overtaking manoeuvres outside of multi-lane roads, or the inability of many drivers to recognise that someone is wanting to overtake them and they should move left and help them do so.

When cycling on quiet, narrower roads, if a car comes behind me, I move over to the edge of the gutter, slow down and try and get them to pass me - I'm always surprised at how little the offer gets taken up, even when I try and direct them to pass me with my hand - they still feel it's better to be about 2 feet behind me, going slow enough that they aren't making much noise (which is the main reason why I want them to pass me).

[agentsteel53]

While staying home and having a beer is a good thing, are you a roadgeek if you don't understand using roads for pleasure? That said, doing it and annoying everyone by holding them up isn't a good thing.

if you don't understand roads for pleasure, then no, you are not a roadgeek.  are we just approaching the same question from opposite sides of the grammar?

even if I cannot articulate exactly where I am going, I still feel like I am going somewhere.  For example, last weekend I did an exploration trip of Oregon and Idaho.  I got pulled over, and the police asked me where I was going, and the best I could do was "Portland, maybe?  Probably not.  I haven't decided yet."

so of course, in their mind, that equates not to "roadgeek" but to "drug dealer".  Damn cops. 

[J N Winkler]

even if I cannot articulate exactly where I am going, I still feel like I am going somewhere.  For example, last weekend I did an exploration trip of Oregon and Idaho.  I got pulled over, and the police asked me where I was going, and the best I could do was "Portland, maybe?  Probably not.  I haven't decided yet."

The "correct" answer to that question is generally the first line on the last D-series distance sign or post-interchange route confirmation sign you passed.  It is "correct" because it is specific and gives an impression of purposeful travel.  Even if you have no plans to stay in that town, the police can't get after you for lying because you are not promising to them that you are going there or planning to stay there--you retain the freedom to change your mind.

An indefinite answer just encourages them to ask you to submit to voluntary searches and to try other tricks designed to escalate reasonable suspicion up to probable cause.

[corco]

I always just say the next town on the highway at border checkpoints- I haven't been pulled over while roadgeeking but I suspect I'd say the same thing if that happened.

It's technically correct and honest and it won't raise suspicion.

[agentsteel53]

The "correct" answer to that question is generally the first line on the last D-series distance sign or post-interchange route confirmation sign you passed.  It is "correct" because it is specific and gives an impression of purposeful travel.  Even if you have no plans to stay in that town, the police can't get after you for lying because you are not promising to them that you are going there or planning to stay there--you retain the freedom to change your mind.

An indefinite answer just encourages them to ask you to submit to voluntary searches and to try other tricks designed to escalate reasonable suspicion up to probable cause.

I hear ya, but damn, trying to come up with stories on-the-fly is tough work.  I need at least 5 beers in me to be able to prevaricate quite so fluidly, and is that what they are encouraging me to do?  Really?

"so where are you headed today?"
"Klamath Falls"
"what's there?"
"uh... well, not a US 97 and state highway 39 pair of cutouts anymore"
"son, what the Hell is wrong with you?  you on drugs, boy?"

yeah ... that degenerates quickly.

"so where are you headed today?"
"Klamath Falls"
"what's there?"
"a motel so I can get some sleep"
"it's 8.30 in the morning.  you on drugs, boy?"

not so much ...

"so where are you headed today?"
"Klamath Falls"
"what's there?"
"your mom"

[agentsteel53]

I always just say the next town on the highway at border checkpoints- I haven't been pulled over while roadgeeking but I suspect I'd say the same thing if that happened.

It's technically correct and honest and it won't raise suspicion.

when it comes to border patrol checkpoints, I usually have a story prepared, but the fact is, I do significantly less roadgeeking in the constitution-free zone - I really am attempting to get to Point B and have decided to bite the bullet and take the infested highway because it is fastest.  In these cases, I am heading likely home to San Diego (no need to explain that) or out to (usually) Phoenix.

Generally speaking, it is a tragedy that I've been discouraged from exploring the southern part of the US because it is very interesting from a scenery and a historical perspective.  But I will not forget the vicious interrogation I got because I was exploring old US-80 at the (frighteningly appropriately named) Sentinel exit off I-8 in Arizona.

first question I got asked: "who are you picking up?"

I really did respond with "sir, that question is predicated on a false premise and therefore I cannot answer it in a logical manner."

It went downhill from there.

I should've just gone with "your mom".