Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / General Car Topics / July 2005
C'mon America, ticket left lane hogs
|
|
Thread rating:  |
donquijote1954 - 07 Jun 2005 01:00 GMT Two articles go together here: One welcoming the attention these pigs, I mean hogs, deserve from the law; another, about the incredible refusal of the governor of Florida to sign the law into effect. I bet you even the governor's chauffeur would have made a wiser decision. But then politics would be about common sense and not about big money. I don't want to wander off the subject too much though... ;)
In the meantime, we may have to swallow our rage. Remember the Bible, "turn the other cheek." Or count to 10. Or get a bigger vehicle. Or pack your bags and go to Colorado.
This is the advice they give...
"Better yet, how about crafting laws that reinforce the rapidly disappearing concept of personal responsibility, that all drivers should have a grip on their emotions when they get behind the wheel?"
Target: Left Lane Hogs - Finally! by Eric Peters
Some good news: Left lane hogs are finally getting the attention they deserve from traffic cops -- and traffic laws.
In at least two states -- Colorado and Florida -- cops are begiining to target drivers who squat in the far left lane and refuse to move right to let faster-moving traffic get by. For decades, these drivers have been allowed to create rolling roadblocks and interrupt the smooth (and therfore safe) flow of traffic with virtual impunity because "faiure to yield" laws were either not on the books -- or not enforced. And twenty-plus years of ddumbed-down, politicized "driver's education" and "safety" campaigns had effectively propagandized the populace into believing their was only one cardinal sin -- "speeding."
And so the focus of traffic "safety" enforcement was speed limit laws -- which of course were often ridiculous (the best example being the 55-mph National Maximum Speed Limit that Congress finally repealed in 1995. But these under-posted, artificially low speed limits were found to be very useful in terms of generating an unforseen flow of easy money for state and local governments -- who soon became addicted. And it was so much easier for traffic cops to simply shoot fish in a barrel with their radar guns -- because almost every car on the road was going faster than the absurdly low posted limits.
Much easier than actually looking for dangerous drivers, anyhow.
This is finally changing, though.
In Colorado, state police have written more than 500 tickets to left lane hogs since the beginning of the year; in Florida, a bill is on the legilstive docket that would impose a $60 fine and four DMV "demerit points" on the driving record of motorists who refuse to allow faster moving traffic by.
Twenty years ago, this would have been an unthinkable violation of the politically correct orthodoxy that onle "speed kills" -- and therefore only enforcing speed limits (no matter how absurd or contrived) matters.
But in fact, people who refuse to move right represent a major traffic safety hazard -- whether "they doing the speed limit" (as they often bleat in self-righteous high dudgeon) or not.
By refusing to allow other motorists to get by, the left lane dawdler causes traffic to back up unnaturally; drivers then angrily jockey for position -- and typically are forced into making a passing attempt in the right lane to get around the hog -- who seems to get some sort of weird passive-aggressive satisfaction from his obstinancy.
The situation is frustrating, distracting -- and very unsafe. In fact, the lack of reflexive lane courtesy in this country is arguably the biggest single safety problem we have -- not "speeding."
Consider the example of Germany -- where yielding to faster-moving traffic is part of the national culture and adhered to religiously. As a result, it is possible for the Germans to have unlimited speed Autobahns -- where drivers in the left lane often overtake other cars at tripe digit speeds. But because German drivers are taught to use their mirrors -- and immediately move right to allow faster-moving approaching cars to pass -- they have a lower accident and fatality rate than we do here in the United States with our dumbed-down speed limits.
It will take time for the facts about the danger of left lane hogging to sink into the general consciousness -- the consequence of 20-plus years of neglect and outright disinformation peddled by know-nothing "safety" advocates.
But, at last, things are beginning to change for the better.
http://www.grmotorsports.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=9798
***
Target new drivers, not the hapless ones
BY LARRY LEBOWITZ
The debate rages on across the Sunshine State over Gov. Jeb Bush's veto of the shrewdly misnamed Road Rage Reduction Act.
The bill -- which passed both houses of the Legislature with just four dissenting votes -- would have required drivers in the left lane of any limited-access four-lane roadway to get out of the way when a faster driver approached from behind, even if the lead driver was traveling at the speed limit.
Drivers who didn't yield would have been ticketed.
Proponents said the bill, modeled on similar measures in 21 states, would have provided relief from the phenomenon of ''rolling roadblocks'' caused by slowpokes driving in the fast lane and impatient speeders darting through traffic to bypass them.
Citing a lack of empirical evidence, Bush said the bill was trying to offer relief to the wrong people: ``those traveling at high rates of speed, or possessed of emotional intemperance, at the expense of cautious and careful drivers.''
Don't misunderstand: There is a legitimate problem here. Plenty of oblivious doofuses are puttering along in the far-left lanes of Interstate 95, the Palmetto Expressway and Florida's Turnpike, where they have no business. But this bill wasn't the answer.
Here's a novel idea -- one espoused by many Streetwise correspondents. Instead of pandering to speeders, perhaps lawmakers ought to demand greater accountability and efficiency from the state Department of Motor Vehicles.
Why not make sure that new license recipients actually learn the Florida traffic laws before they legally hit the road?
You know, regulations like slower traffic should stay to the right.
Or that stopping in the middle of the interstate and backing up to the exit ramp is verboten.
How about finding more money to hire troopers to clear accidents faster?
Better yet, how about crafting laws that reinforce the rapidly disappearing concept of personal responsibility, that all drivers should have a grip on their emotions when they get behind the wheel?
WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE http://committed.to/justiceforpeace
Guardenman - 06 Jun 2005 10:55 GMT > Two articles go together here: One welcoming the attention these pigs, > I mean hogs, deserve from the law; another, about the incredible > refusal of the governor of Florida to sign the law into effect. I bet > you even the governor's chauffeur would have made a wiser decision. The problem most people have with these laws is. People somehow seem to think that lane restrictions translate to an exemption from the speed limit. In other words if the speed limit is 65 MPH and someone is driving 65 MPH in the left lane. Are they "Hogging the road" if someone else wants to drive 75 MPH? If so what exactly are you going to ticket them for? Oh and can I be in court when you face the judge and the drivers attorney? I'll bring the doughnuts it should be fun. Please let it be an older judge with a good sense of humor, preferably one who is known for liking his i's dotted and t's crossed.
But
> then politics would be about common sense and not about big money. I > don't want to wander off the subject too much though... ;) It'll never happen.
> In the meantime, we may have to swallow our rage. Remember the Bible, > "turn the other cheek." Or count to 10. Good advise.
Or get a bigger vehicle. Or
> pack your bags and go to Colorado. LOL
> This is the advice they give... > > "Better yet, how about crafting laws that reinforce the rapidly > disappearing concept of personal responsibility, that all drivers > should have a grip on their emotions when they get behind the wheel?" Most states have laws dealing with aggressive drivers. It is amassing how many people get overly emotional when driving. The best way to determine how fast you should be traveling is, look at a car five or ten cars ahead of you. If that car is traveling at the same speed as the one in front of you. There is no reason to waste effort passing. Just accept the speed of traffic and drive safely.
> Target: Left Lane Hogs - Finally! > by Eric Peters [quoted text clipped - 124 lines] > WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE > http://committed.to/justiceforpeace Steini - 07 Jun 2005 09:12 GMT Guardenman schrieb:
> > Two articles go together here: One welcoming the attention these pigs, > > I mean hogs, deserve from the law; another, about the incredible [quoted text clipped - 168 lines] > > WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE > > http://committed.to/justiceforpeace hihihi
Bownse - 07 Jun 2005 13:10 GMT > The problem most people have with these laws is. People somehow seem to > think that lane restrictions translate to an exemption from the speed limit. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > sense of humor, preferably one who is known for liking his i's dotted and > t's crossed. No, the problem is that some people have a problem with reading comprehension. The posted signs don't have lists of exceptions. They say either:
SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT
or
LEFT LANE FOR PASSING ONLY
They don't include ANY comments about, "except if you're already moving at the posted max speed limit". If that is what was meant, that is what the signs would say. They don't and they don't.
There is no wiggle room there for people jonesing to play traffic control officers or wanting to set up camp in the left lane as a rolling road block. In either case, if you are slower than someone approaching from behind, MOVE THE f.ck TO THE RIGHT. It's as simple as that. Enforcing speed limits is not your job. Leave it to those who were hired to do so. In the mean time, dismount from your high horse and get the f.ck to the right if someone approaches you from behind at a higher speed than you are willing to drive.
 Signature Mark Johnson, Ft. Worth, TX, RCOS#7, EOB http://www.bikes-n-spikes.org "Government is like a baby: An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other." - Ronald Reagan
N8N - 07 Jun 2005 13:31 GMT > > Two articles go together here: One welcoming the attention these pigs, > > I mean hogs, deserve from the law; another, about the incredible [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the left lane. Are they "Hogging the road" if someone else wants to drive 75 > MPH? yes.
> If so what exactly are you going to ticket them for? Violation of the KRETP or STKR law, depending on location. I'm not aware of *any* other infraction where "but he's breaking the law TOO!" is so commonly used as an excuse for one's poor behavior. If you're going to complain about someone else's lawlessness you ought to at least try to have the moral high ground of legal actions on your own part.
> Oh and can I be in > court when you face the judge and the drivers attorney? I'll bring the > doughnuts it should be fun. Please let it be an older judge with a good > sense of humor, preferably one who is known for liking his i's dotted and > t's crossed. Hey, if it can be proven that the driver was LLBing, in many states the ticket *should* stick, assuming the judge is fair. The roads would be much less stressful and much more safe if this happened more than once a blue moon.
nate
Vito - 07 Jun 2005 15:00 GMT > The problem most people have with these laws is. People somehow seem to > think that lane restrictions translate to an exemption from the speed limit. > In other words if the speed limit is 65 MPH and someone is driving 65 MPH in > the left lane. Are they "Hogging the road" if someone else wants to drive 75 > MPH? Yes!! There are valid, legal reasons for exceeding posted speed limits. These are few but the lane hog has no way of knowing if the person behind him has one. Therefore, he is legally obligated to give way and move over, at least in Va. You can look up your own states laws on www.findlaw.com.
Enforcement is anther matter. It is illegal to drive in the left lane of a multilane highway in Virginia but the state's attorney ruled that the law was unenforcable so nobody gets ticketed.
Guardenman - 06 Jun 2005 21:27 GMT >> The problem most people have with these laws is. People somehow seem to >> think that lane restrictions translate to an exemption from the speed [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > These are few but the lane hog has no way of knowing if the person behind > him has one. It is also illegal to pretend to have anemergency when one does exist. It's not worded exactly like that but you get the point
Therefore, he is legally obligated to give way and move over,
> at least in Va. Nope. Only if it is a certified emergency vehicle.
You can look up your own states laws on www.findlaw.com.
.How about you show me the law that backs up what you are saying.
> Enforcement is anther matter. It is illegal to drive in the left lane of > a > multilane highway in Virginia but the state's attorney ruled that the law > was unenforcable so nobody gets ticketed. Simply not true. Virginia has no requirements for traveling in any lane except on certain roads. Localities can pass laws that restrict lanes, but there is no state wide law. The only exception is for vehicles traveling at excessively slow speeds. By definition a vehicle traveling at the maximum speed limit is not traveling at an excessively slow speed. A vehicle traveling at above the speed limit is not given any special right of ways.
Tom Quackenbush - 07 Jun 2005 20:20 GMT >Vito wrote: <snip>
>> Enforcement is anther matter. It is illegal to drive in the left lane of a >> multilane highway in Virginia but the state's attorney ruled that the law [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >speed limit is not traveling at an excessively slow speed. A vehicle >traveling at above the speed limit is not given any special right of ways. From: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+46.2-802
§ 46.2-802. Drive on right side of highways.
Except as otherwise provided by law, on all highways of sufficient width, the driver of a vehicle shall drive on the right half of the highway, unless it is impracticable to travel on such side of the highway and except when overtaking and passing another vehicle, subject to the provisions applicable to overtaking and passing set forth in Article 4 (§ 46.2-837 et seq.) of this chapter.
R, Tom Q.
Remove bogusinfo to reply
Tom Quackenbush - 07 Jun 2005 20:35 GMT <snip>
>§ 46.2-802. Drive on right side of highways. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >subject to the provisions applicable to overtaking and passing set >forth in Article 4 (§ 46.2-837 et seq.) of this chapter. Scratch that; that's talking about sharing the road with oncoming traffic.
This one deals with staying right on multi-laned highways:
§ 46.2-804. Special regulations applicable on highways laned for traffic.
Whenever any roadway has been divided into clearly marked lanes for traffic, drivers of vehicles shall obey the following:
1. Any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions existing, shall be driven in the lane nearest the right edge or right curb of the highway when such lane is available for travel except when overtaking and passing another vehicle or in preparation for a left turn or where right lanes are reserved for slow-moving traffic as permitted in this section;
2. A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as is practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from that lane until the driver has ascertained that such movement can be made safely;
3. Except as otherwise provided in subdivision 5 of this section, on a highway which is divided into three lanes, no vehicle shall be driven in the center lane except when overtaking and passing another vehicle or in preparation for a left turn or unless such center lane is at the time allocated exclusively to traffic moving in the direction the vehicle is proceeding and is signed or marked to give notice of such allocation. Traffic-control devices may be erected directing specified traffic to use a designated lane or designating those lanes to be used by traffic moving in a particular direction regardless of the center of the roadway and drivers of vehicles shall obey the directions of every such device; [...]
R, Tom Q.
Remove bogusinfo to reply
Bownse - 07 Jun 2005 20:36 GMT >>>The problem most people have with these laws is. People somehow seem to >>>think that lane restrictions translate to an exemption from the speed [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > speed limit is not traveling at an excessively slow speed. A vehicle > traveling at above the speed limit is not given any special right of ways. so stay in VA and hog their lanes. everyone else will thank you.
 Signature Mark Johnson, Ft. Worth, TX, RCOS#7, EOB http://www.bikes-n-spikes.org "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke
N8N - 07 Jun 2005 20:49 GMT > Simply not true. Virginia has no requirements for traveling in any lane > except on certain roads. Localities can pass laws that restrict lanes, but > there is no state wide law. The only exception is for vehicles traveling at > excessively slow speeds. By definition a vehicle traveling at the maximum > speed limit is not traveling at an excessively slow speed. A vehicle > traveling at above the speed limit is not given any special right of ways. unsupported and untrue claim.
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+46.2-804
unless you're going to make the specious claim that the wording "normal speed of traffic" refers somehow to the speed limit? Don't you think that if they meant "speed limit" they would have written the words "speed limit" into the law?
nate
Guardenman - 07 Jun 2005 06:39 GMT >> Simply not true. Virginia has no requirements for traveling in any lane >> except on certain roads. Localities can pass laws that restrict lanes, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > unless you're going to make the specious claim that the wording "normal > speed of traffic" refers somehow to the speed limit? The word Normal is something we could go on for days about. I'll just say what I usually tell anyone who uses it on a report that crosses my desk. Please define normal.
Don't you think
> that if they meant "speed limit" they would have written the words > "speed limit" into the law? That law is refering to congested roads. It is actually a clarification (exception) to another law 46.2- 842. As for writing the speed limit into the law they did. See 46.2-823
> nate Garth Almgren - 08 Jun 2005 04:02 GMT >>http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+46.2-804 >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > what I usually tell anyone who uses it on a report that crosses my desk. > Please define normal. "Normal speed of traffic" usually refers to the 50th percentile speed of free-flowing traffic at that place and time.
Which is, at least in the US, often in excess of the posted speed limit.
 Signature ~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie. Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave. ******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant." (pgp@v6stang.com for secure mail info) --H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)
Bownse - 08 Jun 2005 05:52 GMT >>> http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+46.2-804 >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > "Normal speed of traffic" usually refers to the 50th percentile speed of > free-flowing traffic at that place and time. Actually, FHWA and State bodies have used the 85th percentile in their engineering standards to establish speed limits. That politicians often over rule their recommendations is a different issue.
> Which is, at least in the US, often in excess of the posted speed limit. Even when you consider it at the 85%.
 Signature Mark Johnson, Ft. Worth, TX, RCOS#7, EOB http://www.bikes-n-spikes.org "The point of living is not to delay death; it is to celebrate life." - Martin Eden
Arif Khokar - 08 Jun 2005 06:07 GMT [median speed of traffic]
>> Which is, at least in the US, often in excess of the posted speed limit.
> Even when you consider it at the 85%. Of course; the 50th percentile speed (IOW, median speed) is about 5 to 7 mph lower than the 85th percentile speed. On interstates, 65 mph represents the 30th percentile speed of traffic. Seventy mph represents the 40th to 60th percentile speed.
Bownse - 08 Jun 2005 05:44 GMT >>>Simply not true. Virginia has no requirements for traveling in any lane >>>except on certain roads. Localities can pass laws that restrict lanes, [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > >>nate laws are explicit. if something isn't mentioned as part of a law, it isn't law. if they had meant for their KRETP to only apply up to the point where someone was driving the speed limit (and from then on they could stay there because, "how dare someone tell ME to move right?"), then it would have said so in the wording. it doesn't. such attempt to put words into the stature don't pass muster. KRETP means just that; nothing more and nothing less.
 Signature Mark Johnson, Ft. Worth, TX, RCOS#7, EOB http://www.bikes-n-spikes.org "The road to truth is long, and lined the entire way with annoying bastards." - Alexander Jablokov
N8N - 08 Jun 2005 16:06 GMT > >> Simply not true. Virginia has no requirements for traveling in any lane > >> except on certain roads. Localities can pass laws that restrict lanes, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > what I usually tell anyone who uses it on a report that crosses my desk. > Please define normal. Most people understand the word "normal;" in other words, a representative number for the speed of the main flow of traffic. Depending on how you interpret it, in this specific context it could refer to the peak of the bell curve of speed distribution, or the 50th percentile speed, but in either case it is entirely independent of the speed limit.
No matter how you slice it, it is difficult to justify driving in the left lane at the speed limit when other traffic wishes to pass, given the above. I've logged a few miles in Virginia; generally any definition of "normal" is above the posted limit disregarding especially congested areas like the DC Beltway and I-66 during rush hour.
> Don't you think > > that if they meant "speed limit" they would have written the words > > "speed limit" into the law? > > That law is refering to congested roads. unsupported assertion.
> It is actually a clarification > (exception) to another law 46.2- 842. Which also supports KRETP.
> As for writing the speed limit into > the law they did. See 46.2-823 All that says is that "The driver of any vehicle traveling at an unlawful speed shall forfeit any right-of-way which he might otherwise have under this article." I don't see that as relieving you (driving at a supposedly legal speed) from your responsibility to obey the other two sections above - it just means that the faster driver does not have the legal right to expect you to move out of his way (even though you are still required to do so.) A hair-splitting point, perhaps, but there you have it.
I have to admit that I am not a big fan of the way Virginia's laws are written, as they do allow some room for misinterpretation by the Claybrookian crowd, but that was the example given. The fact that normal travel speeds are often classified as "reckless driving" doesn't warm the cockles of my heart much, either. The good news is, that outside of the metro DC area, Virginia drivers generally understand the spirit of KRETP laws and drive in a sensible, considerate manner.
nate
Guardenman - 08 Jun 2005 03:20 GMT >> >> Simply not true. Virginia has no requirements for traveling in any >> >> lane [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Most people understand the word "normal;" in other words, a > representative number for the speed of the main flow of traffic. Yes but the word normal is not defined in the code. Therefore if you use it, any good defense attorney will ask you to define it in court. Than you have to prove why your definition is valid. Trust me it can get real ugly.
> Depending on how you interpret it, in this specific context it could > refer to the peak of the bell curve of speed distribution, or the 50th > percentile speed, but in either case it is entirely independent of the > speed limit. Ok again we are in court now. how are you going to prove that one driver was going slower than fifty percent of the other drivers?
> No matter how you slice it, it is difficult to justify driving in the > left lane at the speed limit when other traffic wishes to pass, given > the above. Ok now lets take one sencerio. You write the ticket (MVS) for going 55 MPH in the left lane. three days later the same driver gets a ticket for going 70 mph in the left lane on the same road. He shows up in court with both tickets. Now what are we going to do?
I've logged a few miles in Virginia; generally any
> definition of "normal" is above the posted limit disregarding > especially congested areas like the DC Beltway and I-66 during rush > hour. lol. If you going to appear in court and define normal as breaking the law. Could you please post the date and time so we can all watch.
>> Don't you think >> > that if they meant "speed limit" they would have written the words [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > unsupported assertion. No actually it is part ofthe DCJS training criteria.
>> It is actually a clarification >> (exception) to another law 46.2- 842. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > are still required to do so.) A hair-splitting point, perhaps, but > there you have it. OK so the law that clearly states that you don't have the right of way, should be ignored. But the one that sort of , if you interpret one way, almost says you have the right of way, is the only law to pay attention to. What is this nonsense about "supposedly legal speed"? A driver that is breaking the sped limit is traveling at an illegal speed. 46.2-823 was written to clarify just this point. In other words a driver obeying the law is not required to change lanes so you can break it. Nor is he/she required to move off the road on a two lane.
> I have to admit that I am not a big fan of the way Virginia's laws are > written, as they do allow some room for misinterpretation by the > Claybrookian crowd, but that was the example given. The fact that > normal travel speeds are often classified as "reckless driving" doesn't > warm the cockles of my heart much, either. Nobody who is in the bussiness of enforceing the law, thinks normal and reckless are the same thing.
The good news is, that
> outside of the metro DC area, Virginia drivers generally understand the > spirit of KRETP laws and drive in a sensible, considerate manner. Virginia has several metropolitan areas. Richmond, Hampton roads ect. Actually the laws are more written for some of them. The best example is Portsmouth. They have an interstate highway that is about 14 miles long. it has about 20 exits in that stretch of road. Most of the exits are on the right. That means traffic on the right is constantly speeding up and slowing down, to allow people to enter and exit the highway. Now if someone chooses to obey the speed limit, why should we punish them and force them to deal with all that, when they can just stay in the left lane and go as fast as the law permits? Never mind the fact that allowing them to stay to the left reduces traffic at the merge points. Also if you read the laws on passing it says, a driver should move to the right to allow another vehicle to pass, except when passing on the right is allowed. Which just happens to be another example of KRETP not being part of the COV.
> nate N8N - 09 Jun 2005 12:49 GMT > >> >> Simply not true. Virginia has no requirements for traveling in any > >> >> lane [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > any good defense attorney will ask you to define it in court. Than you have > to prove why your definition is valid. Trust me it can get real ugly. Doesn't seem like rocket science; if the word "normal" is not defined in the code, pick the dictionary definition that best fits its usage.
> > Depending on how you interpret it, in this specific context it could > > refer to the peak of the bell curve of speed distribution, or the 50th [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Ok again we are in court now. how are you going to prove that one driver was > going slower than fifty percent of the other drivers? Um, you're putting yourself in the place of the cop justifying his ticket on the stand; all you have to do is say so. If you really want to prove it to yourself, it's easy to see whether a car is passing more cars than it's being passed by. A typical LLBer is usually passing nobody and being passed by everyone, making identification easy.
> > No matter how you slice it, it is difficult to justify driving in the > > left lane at the speed limit when other traffic wishes to pass, given [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 70 mph in the left lane on the same road. He shows up in court with both > tickets. Now what are we going to do? Evaluate each ticket on its own merits, of course.
> I've logged a few miles in Virginia; generally any > > definition of "normal" is above the posted limit disregarding [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > lol. If you going to appear in court and define normal as breaking the law. > Could you please post the date and time so we can all watch. Anyone with half an ounce of common sense can see that normal often is in technical violation of the speed limit.
> >> Don't you think > >> > that if they meant "speed limit" they would have written the words [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > No actually it is part ofthe DCJS training criteria. Still not written into the law. That's someone's interpretation of the law, not what the law says. See, the neat thing about US laws is that they've always been written in "plain" English so the lay person can read and understand them.
> >> It is actually a clarification > >> (exception) to another law 46.2- 842. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > is not required to change lanes so you can break it. Nor is he/she required > to move off the road on a two lane. Just because the faster driver does not have the legal right of way does not excuse the slower driver from his responsibility to drive in a legal manner.
> > I have to admit that I am not a big fan of the way Virginia's laws are > > written, as they do allow some room for misinterpretation by the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Nobody who is in the bussiness of enforceing the law, thinks normal and > reckless are the same thing. Practically nobody does. However, when you post a speed limit of 55 MPH on a 75 MPH road, then define reckless as 20 over, that's what you get.
> The good news is, that > > outside of the metro DC area, Virginia drivers generally understand the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > right. That means traffic on the right is constantly speeding up and slowing > down, to allow people to enter and exit the highway. Didn't I say something about merging skills being piss poor around here as well?
> Now if someone chooses > to obey the speed limit, why should we punish them and force them to deal > with all that, Shouldn't. Ticket all the people who can't merge that are clogging up the right lane.
> when they can just stay in the left lane and go as fast as > the law permits? Because then you've just created a one-lane highway. Congratulations.
> Never mind the fact that allowing them to stay to the left > reduces traffic at the merge points. Also if you read the laws on passing it > says, a driver should move to the right to allow another vehicle to pass, > except when passing on the right is allowed. Which is a really unfortunate phrase, obviously intended to allow people to pass other drivers turning left or preparing for left exits, not garden variety idiots just camping out in the passing lane.
> Which just happens to be > another example of KRETP not being part of the COV. Still not getting it, I see. The fact that you are apparently a cop explains that, however - you're told how to interpret the laws, not to think for yourselves. How unfortunate that is, really...
nate
Guardenman - 08 Jun 2005 16:15 GMT >> >> >> Simply not true. Virginia has no requirements for traveling in any >> >> >> lane [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > cars than it's being passed by. A typical LLBer is usually passing > nobody and being passed by everyone, making identification easy. No I am trying to get you to do it. It is easy to see. try saying that to a defense atorney.
>> > No matter how you slice it, it is difficult to justify driving in the >> > left lane at the speed limit when other traffic wishes to pass, given [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Evaluate each ticket on its own merits, of course. Did you hear the woshing sound as that went over your head?
>> I've logged a few miles in Virginia; generally any >> > definition of "normal" is above the posted limit disregarding [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Anyone with half an ounce of common sense can see that normal often is > in technical violation of the speed limit. Are you serious? Do you really believe that the legislators meant to define breaking the law as normal?
>> >> Don't you think >> >> > that if they meant "speed limit" they would have written the words [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > they've always been written in "plain" English so the lay person can > read and understand them. It is writen into the code. It may not be included in that particular line, but it is in there. You can't just follow one law and ignore all the others.
>> >> It is actually a clarification >> >> (exception) to another law 46.2- 842. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > does not excuse the slower driver from his responsibility to drive in a > legal manner. You missed the point. "right of way" is what requires one drive to let another driver proceed instead of him/her. In other words when it says " traffic going slower than normal must move to the right" that is granting right of way to the other drivers.
>> > I have to admit that I am not a big fan of the way Virginia's laws are >> > written, as they do allow some room for misinterpretation by the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > MPH on a 75 MPH road, then define reckless as 20 over, that's what you > get. I was discussing the law the way it is written. The above comment just declares that you have no respect for it or concern about what it actually says.
>> The good news is, that >> > outside of the metro DC area, Virginia drivers generally understand the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Didn't I say something about merging skills being piss poor around here > as well? Don't even get me started. I think merging should be a required skill on the road test. If you do it wrong you automatically fail.
>> Now if someone chooses >> to obey the speed limit, why should we punish them and force them to deal >> with all that, > > Shouldn't. Ticket all the people who can't merge that are clogging up > the right lane. Do you own a bulk printing business?
>> when they can just stay in the left lane and go as fast as >> the law permits? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > people to pass other drivers turning left or preparing for left exits, > not garden variety idiots just camping out in the passing lane. No. What would it take to convince you that Virginia does not recognize the left lane as a passing lane? Every single reference to the lack of the law is rewritten in your mind to say something other than what it says.
>> Which just happens to be >> another example of KRETP not being part of the COV. > > Still not getting it, I see. The fact that you are apparently a cop > explains that, however - you're told how to interpret the laws, not to > think for yourselves. How unfortunate that is, really... Well you are way off. You obviously know very little about law enforcement and how we are trained. Thinking for ourselves is 90% of the job.
> nate N8N - 09 Jun 2005 14:10 GMT > >> >> >> Simply not true. Virginia has no requirements for traveling in any > >> >> >> lane [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > No I am trying to get you to do it. It is easy to see. try saying that to a > defense atorney. My point was, that at least in the traffic courts I've been to (admittedly limited; my experience has been limited to two appearances - for the same ticket - and not in VA) is that if the cop actually shows up, his word carries a lot more weight than that of the defense. Unless the defendant has a solid case (i.e. the cop screwed up) AND he has a good lawyer, the cop's testimony is good enough. Generally I consider that a Bad Thing; but I certainly would never argue with a cop who wrote a ticket for LLBing.
> >> > No matter how you slice it, it is difficult to justify driving in the > >> > left lane at the speed limit when other traffic wishes to pass, given [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Did you hear the woshing sound as that went over your head? I think I see where you were going with that, but was the 70 MPH ticket for speeding or LLBing? Was there a real safety/obstruction of traffic concern? Need to know more to respond.
> >> I've logged a few miles in Virginia; generally any > >> > definition of "normal" is above the posted limit disregarding [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Are you serious? Do you really believe that the legislators meant to define > breaking the law as normal? Normal simply equals normal, whether it be legal or illegal.
Now what I *do* have a problem with is the fact that we're still saddled with 1960s era speed limits when obviously vehicle technology, road design and construction, etc. have all progressed in the intervening years and actual travel speeds have risen to reflect that thus normal behavior is now defined as illegal. However, that's an entirely separate issue than whether or not LLBing ought to be a ticketable offense.
> >> >> Don't you think > >> >> > that if they meant "speed limit" they would have written the words [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > It is writen into the code. It may not be included in that particular line, > but it is in there. You can't just follow one law and ignore all the others. Actually I follow *all* traffic laws, with the exception of speed limits (when it is safe to break them.) Only reason that I choose to ignore the speed limit is that it is statistically safer to stick with the flow of traffic rather than create speed differentials.
> >> >> It is actually a clarification > >> >> (exception) to another law 46.2- 842. [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > traffic going slower than normal must move to the right" that is granting > right of way to the other drivers. I would think that the slower driver is still not relieved of his responsibilities; but that if an incident were to occur that the faster driver would be found at fault due to not having the legal right of way.
> >> > I have to admit that I am not a big fan of the way Virginia's laws are > >> > written, as they do allow some room for misinterpretation by the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > declares that you have no respect for it or concern about what it actually > says. I'm personally less concerned with the law than I am about getting to my destination in a safe, hassle-free manner.
> >> The good news is, that > >> > outside of the metro DC area, Virginia drivers generally understand the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Don't even get me started. I think merging should be a required skill on the > road test. If you do it wrong you automatically fail. *high-fives* I am so with you there.
Speaking of which, why is it that I have not taken an in-car driver's test since I was 16 years old, and yet have held valid driver's licenses in at least five different states at various times? Only state that had any kind of test at all was Ohio, I had to retake the written test when I moved there.
> >> Now if someone chooses > >> to obey the speed limit, why should we punish them and force them to deal [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Do you own a bulk printing business? I can start one if it looks like a money-making proposition. :) If you write them, I predict a jump in new start-ups of companies producing little bound books with various-colored pieces of paper with carbon backs.
> >> when they can just stay in the left lane and go as fast as > >> the law permits? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > left lane as a passing lane? Every single reference to the lack of the law > is rewritten in your mind to say something other than what it says. A suspension of common sense and forgetting all knowledge about a) how drivers have been traditionally trained to drive and b) the evolution of driving-related laws in the US.
> >> Which just happens to be > >> another example of KRETP not being part of the COV. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Well you are way off. You obviously know very little about law enforcement > and how we are trained. Thinking for ourselves is 90% of the job. OK, my statement might have been a little harsh, but you have to admit that your interpretation of the laws is heavily influenced by what your training classes have taught you that the correct interpretation ought to be.
Can we at least agree that KRETP is a good principle and is conducive to faster yet safer traffic flow?
nate
PS - despite the fact that we're obviously miles off in our actual opinions, I actually do appreciate the discussion. It's nice to see a LEO at least taking an interest in driving-related issues.
PPS - this discussion is going to become much more relevant to me personally in the near future, as it looks like I will be starting a new position based in NoVA soon, and it will entail lots of construction site visits...
Guardenman - 08 Jun 2005 17:31 GMT >> >> >> >> Simply not true. Virginia has no requirements for traveling in >> >> >> >> any [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > consider that a Bad Thing; but I certainly would never argue with a cop > who wrote a ticket for LLBing. You have a good point. Most of my court appearances have to do with felony arrests. I am used to dealing with a very vicious breed of defense attorney's.
>> >> > No matter how you slice it, it is difficult to justify driving in >> >> > the [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > for speeding or LLBing? Was there a real safety/obstruction of traffic > concern? Need to know more to respond. The speed limit is 55 MPH the 70 mph ticket was for speeding.
>> >> I've logged a few miles in Virginia; generally any >> >> > definition of "normal" is above the posted limit disregarding [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > road design and construction, etc. have all progressed in the > intervening years and actual travel speeds have risen to reflect that This is true to an extent.
> thus normal behavior is now defined as illegal. Never.
However, that's an
> entirely separate issue than whether or not LLBing ought to be a > ticketable offense. Now we are changing gears. We where talking about if it is an offense or not. If the law should be changed is a different issue.
>> >> >> Don't you think >> >> >> > that if they meant "speed limit" they would have written the [quoted text clipped - 201 lines] > new position based in NoVA soon, and it will entail lots of > construction site visits... N8N - 09 Jun 2005 15:02 GMT <snip>
> >> >> Ok again we are in court now. how are you going to prove that one > >> >> driver [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > arrests. I am used to dealing with a very vicious breed of defense > attorney's. That's a whole different animal. Most traffic offenses are non-criminal offenses therefore they fall under "preponderance of evidence" rather than "reasonable doubt" and generally the testimony of a LEO is considered to be evidence. Now that is not 100% true across the board... IIRC some traffic offenses that are considered reckless driving may actually be considered criminal offenses but I don't have the code handy off the top of my head. VA actually does consider quite a few things reckless driving, 20 over being one (feh) and also failure to signal (wish it were enforced!)
That said, a friend of mine received a reckless driving ticket for some ludicrous speed in a 25 zone entering Dulles International Airport to pick up his fiancee. Despite having a good case (he was driving a Toyota Camry; the speed he was accused of was something in the neighborhood of 60 MPH and probably would have involved a four wheel drift were he actually going that fast) and hiring a lawyer, he was still found guilty.
> >> >> > No matter how you slice it, it is difficult to justify driving in > >> >> > the [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > The speed limit is 55 MPH the 70 mph ticket was for speeding. Then both tickets should hold up, although I'd consider writing someone for 70 in a 55 to be fairly ticky-tacky in many places (ever drive on I-95?) Last time I went to visit the girlie's family in NC she was driving (she's got a heavier foot than I, not to mention a faster car) and we were regularly traveling at 80+ (well, except for several incidents where rubberneckers watching someone change a tire or rearrange their trunk caused massive backups...) and still being passed. Yes, the radar detector was safely stowed in the trunk, and I did remind her about the 20 over thing several times.
> >> >> I've logged a few miles in Virginia; generally any > >> >> > definition of "normal" is above the posted limit disregarding [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Never. I'm guessing that you don't do traffic enforcement on I-95 south of the DC Beltway then! Illegal speeds are *quite* normal.
> However, that's an > > entirely separate issue than whether or not LLBing ought to be a > > ticketable offense. > > Now we are changing gears. We where talking about if it is an offense or > not. If the law should be changed is a different issue.
>From reading the pertinent codes, I am left with the impression that it *is* an offense, but one that is rarely if ever ticketed. If that is due to possible ambiguities in the law, by all means, the law should be changed.
an example of a good, unambiguous law:
http://members.aol.com/StatutesPA/75PA3313.html
nate
Arif Khokar - 09 Jun 2005 15:19 GMT > Last time I went to visit the girlie's family in NC she was > driving (she's got a heavier foot than I, not to mention a faster car) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > passed. Yes, the radar detector was safely stowed in the trunk, and I > did remind her about the 20 over thing several times. Driving 80+ in VA isn't a good idea unless you're using a RD. The last thing I would do is stow it in the trunk if I planned to drive that fast.
IME, police in VA do not use equipment that can detect RDs (and I've driven through most areas of VA).
Guardenman - 08 Jun 2005 18:04 GMT > Actually I follow *all* traffic laws, with the exception of speed > limits (when it is safe to break them.) Only reason that I choose to > ignore the speed limit is that it is statistically safer to stick with > the flow of traffic rather than create speed differentials. Does speeding create speed differentials?
>> >> >> It is actually a clarification >> >> >> (exception) to another law 46.2- 842. [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > I'm personally less concerned with the law than I am about getting to > my destination in a safe, hassle-free manner. That's fine. To a point. But in this forum we do tend to discuss laws.
>> >> The good news is, that >> >> > outside of the metro DC area, Virginia drivers generally understand [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > little bound books with various-colored pieces of paper with carbon > backs. It would be a money losing proposition for me. I sort of get paid a whole lot more than most of the guys doing traffic. Of coarse my job is safer too. I mean all I do is hunt down bombs and felons all day. Those guys stand on the side of highways.
>> >> when they can just stay in the left lane and go as fast as >> >> the law permits? [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > drivers have been traditionally trained to drive and b) the evolution > of driving-related laws in the US. Common sense and the law are often two different animals. I personally like the laws the way they are here. Obviously many people don't. There are lots of laws I would love to change. Unfortunately they don't let me do that.
>> >> Which just happens to be >> >> another example of KRETP not being part of the COV. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > training classes have taught you that the correct interpretation ought > to be. Well we get our interpretations from the legislators. They are the ones who write them.
> Can we at least agree that KRETP is a good principle and is conducive > to faster yet safer traffic flow? I do not believe that. In some areas yes. In urban areas I think exactly the opposite is true. Think of it this way. Driver A is going 55 MPH. He has to stay in the right lane until he is a mile from his left exit. Than he has to go 10 MPH faster than all the other cars in his lane. How do you do that? Answer you slow down until you have enough space in front of you to speed up ten miles per hour than change lanes. Now if everybody goes the same speed and uses the lanes as they need to, traffic flows better. Sure some people will not get to where they are going as fast, but the majority of people will get there faster.
> nate > > PS - despite the fact that we're obviously miles off in our actual > opinions, I actually do appreciate the discussion. It's nice to see a > LEO at least taking an interest in driving-related issues. I spend a lot of time driving. One of the reasons this issue is so dear to me is, I usually have my partner sleeping in the back of my blazer. I am on call most of the time so if I am in my POV and my dog is in back. I have to obey the speed limit. Believe it or not, we are not exempt from tickets when we are off duty. When I see someone tailgating because I am obeying the speed limit, I start thinking of what it would mean to be rear-ended. It takes several thousand hours and at least a year to train a dog. The idea that mine would get injured because someone feels the need to go a little faster just pisses me off no end.
> PPS - this discussion is going to become much more relevant to me > personally in the near future, as it looks like I will be starting a > new position based in NoVA soon, and it will entail lots of > construction site visits... No VA is a terrible place to drive. I would sugest you just skip the drivers manual and rent a copy of mad max : )
N8N - 09 Jun 2005 15:25 GMT > > Actually I follow *all* traffic laws, with the exception of speed > > limits (when it is safe to break them.) Only reason that I choose to > > ignore the speed limit is that it is statistically safer to stick with > > the flow of traffic rather than create speed differentials. > > Does speeding create speed differentials? When the majority of traffic is exceeding the speed limit, it minimizes them rather than creating them.
<massive snip>
> >> >> Now if someone chooses > >> >> to obey the speed limit, why should we punish them and force them to [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > I mean all I do is hunt down bombs and felons all day. Those guys stand on > the side of highways. Heh, you say that tongue in cheek, but you couldn't pay me enough to stand on the shoulder of many of the highways around here.
> >> >> when they can just stay in the left lane and go as fast as > >> >> the law permits? [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Common sense and the law are often two different animals. Heh, too true!
> I personally like > the laws the way they are here. Obviously many people don't. There are lots > of laws I would love to change. Unfortunately they don't let me do that. You underestimate the weight that the word of a LEO carries. If you put together a professional-looking letter to appropriate legislators you might be surprised at how much more consideration that gets than a similar letter from Joe Public Citizen. Of course, you have to be careful that any opinions expressed by you when it is made clear that you're a LEO aren't going to cause you political problems with your job...
Personally, if you feel a law should be changed, I'd encourage you to make your views known. Nothing ever gets done by saying nothing.
> >> >> Which just happens to be > >> >> another example of KRETP not being part of the COV. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Well we get our interpretations from the legislators. They are the ones who > write them. Actually, you get your interpretations from the *courts...* it's their job to determine what the actual intent of a law is.
> > Can we at least agree that KRETP is a good principle and is conducive > > to faster yet safer traffic flow? > > I do not believe that. In some areas yes. In urban areas I think exactly the > opposite is true. Think of it this way. Driver A is going 55 MPH. He has to > stay in the right lane until he is a mile from his left exit. Well, personally I feel that left exits are the exits of the beast...
> Than he has to > go 10 MPH faster than all the other cars in his lane. How do you do that? > Answer you slow down until you have enough space in front of you to speed up > ten miles per hour than change lanes. ...for exactly that reason. Right exits don't have this problem. But if he has to slow down to allow enough space to accelerate 10 MPH before changing lanes, I'd posit that he was following the vehicle in front of him to begin with, or else was driving a car that I wouldn't want to drive! (I mean, I drive a Porsche 944 - a slow, underpowered beast if there ever was one - and I don't have these problems. Of course, I'm not afraid to use the entire travel of the little skinny pedal on the right when required, either)
> Now if everybody goes the same speed > and uses the lanes as they need to, traffic flows better. Sure some people > will not get to where they are going as fast, but the majority of people > will get there faster. The whole concept of a left exit disrupts the natural stratification of slower = right, faster = left and causes exactly the situation you describe. Above and beyond that, if all lanes are traveling at *exactly* the same speed, that leaves the average driver with less opportunities to change lanes as required, as it's easy to get "boxed in." I personally am a little nervous in traffic flows like that, as I'm left with significantly fewer "outs" than I am if I'm passing or being passed. IOW, if I'm passing or being passed, should I need to change lanes quickly, a "hole" will open to my left or right within a second or two, no matter what. If there's a car right next to me and pacing me, that's suddenly eliminated 25% of my options for evasive action (i.e. move left, move right, brake, or accelerate.)
> > nate > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > obey the speed limit. Believe it or not, we are not exempt from tickets when > we are off duty. I believe it legally but not in practice :( I've seen plenty of *marked* vehicles violating several traffic laws with apparent impunity.
> When I see someone tailgating because I am obeying the > speed limit, I start thinking of what it would mean to be rear-ended. It > takes several thousand hours and at least a year to train a dog. The idea > that mine would get injured because someone feels the need to go a little > faster just pisses me off no end. KRETP solves that problem, if the following driver is sentient enough to change lanes to the left (a big assumption, I know...)
> > PPS - this discussion is going to become much more relevant to me > > personally in the near future, as it looks like I will be starting a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > No VA is a terrible place to drive. I would sugest you just skip the drivers > manual and rent a copy of mad max : ) I was wondering if my new employer would let me use my dad's old International Scout as a company vehicle; sadly it looks like I'll be issued Vlad the Impala :(
In all seriousness, I find that the best vehicle around here is one as small and nimble as possible, I prefer to use maneuverability to my advantage rather than intimidation through size and mass as many drivers seem to employ... I've been living in this area (I'm now working in MD near DC) off and on for about 6 years now and still scratch my head on a regular basis at the actions of some of the drivers...
nate
Guardenman - 08 Jun 2005 19:06 GMT >> > Actually I follow *all* traffic laws, with the exception of speed >> > limits (when it is safe to break them.) Only reason that I choose to [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > Heh, you say that tongue in cheek, but you couldn't pay me enough to > stand on the shoulder of many of the highways around here. It really is one of the most dangerous things we do.
>> >> >> when they can just stay in the left lane and go as fast as >> >> >> the law permits? [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > you're a LEO aren't going to cause you political problems with your > job... It would.
> Personally, if you feel a law should be changed, I'd encourage you to > make your views known. Nothing ever gets done by saying nothing. Hmm I wonder what the boss would say if I joined normal : )
>> >> >> Which just happens to be >> >> >> another example of KRETP not being part of the COV. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Actually, you get your interpretations from the *courts...* it's their > job to determine what the actual intent of a law is. A little of both. We get bulletins from the legislator when they write new laws and rulings from the court when they correct them.
>> > Can we at least agree that KRETP is a good principle and is conducive >> > to faster yet safer traffic flow? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Well, personally I feel that left exits are the exits of the beast... Yea but they are a big part of the highway system in Virginia.
>> Than he has to >> go 10 MPH faster than all the other cars in his lane. How do you do that? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > course, I'm not afraid to use the entire travel of the little skinny > pedal on the right when required, either) Well I was talking about in heavy traffic.
>> Now if everybody goes the same speed >> and uses the lanes as they need to, traffic flows better. Sure some [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > > nate N8N - 09 Jun 2005 16:47 GMT <snip>
> >> I personally like > >> the laws the way they are here. Obviously many people don't. There are [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > It would. That's a shame. (seriously. hard to express tone of voice in a text only forum, but there's no sarcasm there, trust me.)
> > Personally, if you feel a law should be changed, I'd encourage you to > > make your views known. Nothing ever gets done by saying nothing. > > Hmm I wonder what the boss would say if I joined normal : ) um, you mean NORML? If you're implying that you privately support their cause, I agree with you. Not that I'm a dope-smoking hippie or anything like that - but ISTM that a little MJ now and then causes far fewer societal problems on a personal level than, say, alcohol abuse for instance - and yet the criminalization of MJ causes quite a few societal problems by creating a whole criminal underclass to handle the production and distribution. And that's coming from someone who's been known to crack open a beer when getting home from work...
And, yes, since "drugs are bad, m'kay," you might have an issue there. Sadly.
<snip>
> >> > Can we at least agree that KRETP is a good principle and is conducive > >> > to faster yet safer traffic flow? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Yea but they are a big part of the highway system in Virginia. simply bad engineering IMHO. Causes problems that shouldn't exist.
> >> Than he has to > >> go 10 MPH faster than all the other cars in his lane. How do you do that? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Well I was talking about in heavy traffic. Doesn't matter, surely you shouldn't be following any closer just because traffic is heavier...?
nate
Guardenman - 12 Jun 2005 22:01 GMT > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > That's a shame. (seriously. hard to express tone of voice in a text > only forum, but there's no sarcasm there, trust me.) It goes back to the theory that anything I say as a professional, is eventually translated (by some people) to be the opinion of my employer.
>> > Personally, if you feel a law should be changed, I'd encourage you to >> > make your views known. Nothing ever gets done by saying nothing. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > production and distribution. And that's coming from someone who's been > known to crack open a beer when getting home from work... I believe the main reason it is still illegal is; there is no fast, cheap, easy way to detect intocicateing levels dureing a traffic stop.
> And, yes, since "drugs are bad, m'kay," you might have an issue there. > Sadly. Yep standing up in public and saying pot should be legal is a career killer in many fields.
> <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > simply bad engineering IMHO. Causes problems that shouldn't exist. Or could it be we need to change the way we think about lane useage.
>> >> Than he has to >> >> go 10 MPH faster than all the other cars in his lane. How do you do [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Doesn't matter, surely you shouldn't be following any closer just > because traffic is heavier...? I try not to. Unfortunately many (bad) drivers see any opening in traffic and just have to switch lanes. It doesn't matter that they wont go anywhere. In there minds they are moving so they are accomplishing something. All they really do is increase tailgateing and slow traffic.
> nate Nate Nagel - 13 Jun 2005 23:17 GMT >><snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > It goes back to the theory that anything I say as a professional, is > eventually translated (by some people) to be the opinion of my employer. I understand, believe me. I made my original comments without knowing what laws you wanted to have changed. Now if we can get you onto the subject of traffic law reform, that's a little less politicized :)
>>>>Personally, if you feel a law should be changed, I'd encourage you to >>>>make your views known. Nothing ever gets done by saying nothing. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I believe the main reason it is still illegal is; there is no fast, cheap, > easy way to detect intocicateing levels dureing a traffic stop. Not so much traffic stop, but post-incident.
I have to say however that I think the whole thing is blown way out of proportion; most companies do pre-employment drug screenings and some even do randoms just as part of their CYA procedures (they call it "due diligence" which is a fancy way of saying CYA) should something happen that could potentially open them up to liability. So drug users aren't likely to be in positions where they're going to be able to cause trouble; likewise, someone who wants to have a good job with a future is going to decide not to use drugs, even if they become legal tomorrow.
Frankly, I'm surprised that alcohol and tobacco haven't been included in this trend. I suppose it's only a matter of time.
>>And, yes, since "drugs are bad, m'kay," you might have an issue there. >>Sadly. > > Yep standing up in public and saying pot should be legal is a career killer > in many fields. Well, just anything having to do with the government, is all.
>><snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Or could it be we need to change the way we think about lane useage. I agree, but not necessarily in the way that you are thinking. I think it's time to move back to the original ideas of lane discipline that were always codified into law and let lapse due to the Claybrookian mentality that took over in the mid-70s.
Let's look at it from a purely pragmatic standpoint. Whether or not you agree with our current speed limits, I hope that you agree with me that it is the place of the police to enforce them, and it is the primary responsibility of each driver to drive in a safe and courteous manner. So therefore there's really no place on the roads for drivers deliberately acting in such a way as to impede the movement of other drivers, no matter what their motives.
Secondly, no matter what the speed limits are, and regardless of whether or not the majority of the drivers on a given multi-lane road obey them, it is a simple fact of life that there will always be speed differentials between different drivers. There will always be a slow moving truck, say... even if all drivers on a road are attempting to drive at exactly the speed limit, there will be variations in speed - due to speedometer error, someone installing non-OEM size tires on their car without understanding the implications, whatever.
So, we have an inescapable fact that no matter what else we do, we are going to have vehicles traveling at different speeds interacting with each other. Therefore, we have to have a set of rules so that each driver clearly understands his or her responsibilities as to how to interact with other traffic, and likewise be able to expect other traffic to act in a predictable manner to allow them to plan their moves ahead of time rather than being purely reactive to other traffic.
Given all that, the best set of rules that the various people who have devoted any serious amount to this problem have come up with is STKR and KRETP. (assuming driving on the right hand side of the roadway as we do in the US.) These rules make sense for several reasons:
1) On a limited access roadway, traffic generally exits and enters on the right. Therefore, it makes sense to try to stratify the flow of traffic so that the slowest traffic ends up in the rightmost lanes so that vehicles to not have to accelerate or brake excessively to enter the flow of traffic.
2) Since the slowest traffic ought to be on the right, by necessity traffic wishing to pass must do so to the left of slower traffic. It makes no sense to have a different rule for the rightmost lane than any other, so it is logical to extend this to all lanes.
3) In the interest of efficient traffic flow, it makes sense that slower traffic should yield to faster traffic, until such time as all lanes are fully utilized. This is also an extension of right lane behavior, where traffic merging in is required to yield to through traffic. Thus, applying this rule across the entire roadway simply states that one cannot change lanes to the left if one will impede an approaching vehicle by doing so.
4) Once you have accepted the three points above, by necessity to accomplish the goals set forth in 1) and 3), you end up with (drum roll please) STKR/KRETP.
>>>>>Than he has to >>>>>go 10 MPH faster than all the other cars in his lane. How do you do [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > In there minds they are moving so they are accomplishing something. All they > really do is increase tailgateing and slow traffic. Well, I can say from personal experience driving on highways where STKR/KRETP is either not codified into law or else generally ignored by all motorists, that "traffic weaving" while certainly an undesirable behavior from an overall safety standpoint, often does offer real benefits to an individual motorist by allowing him to break free from a slow-moving clot of traffic where there's a real danger of being "boxed in" and instead travel on a relatively deserted stretch of highway both faster and without the risk of being "trapped." Sometimes it is a near necessity, if one is hung out to dry in one of the left lanes and due to chaotic traffic flow one can't simply slow down a few MPH and slip into a lane to the right, if one's exit is coming up. The only effective way to discourage "traffic weaving" is to remove the incentive to do so, by encouraging a stratified flow where if one desires to go faster one simply moves left, or if one wishes to slow down, one moves right. If everyone is playing by the rules, a driver stuck in the left lane at below his desired travel speed is much less likely to try to "traffic weave" to get out of the congestion as he has confidence that a) as soon as the drivers in front of him pass the slower traffic to their right, they will move over, and b) there is no benefit to his changing lanes as he's already in the fastest-moving one.
Once one moves beyond the concept of an absolute maximum speed being the end-all, be-all of traffic safety, it's clear that there's real benefits to enforcing STKR/KRETP...
nate
 Signature replace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
Guardenman - 16 Jun 2005 10:19 GMT >>><snip> >>> [quoted text clipped - 97 lines] > acting in such a way as to impede the movement of other drivers, no matter > what their motives. Are you referring to obeying the speed limit as impeding the movement of other drivers? If so we are miles apart.
> Secondly, no matter what the speed limits are, and regardless of whether > or not the majority of the drivers on a given multi-lane road obey them, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > error, someone installing non-OEM size tires on their car without > understanding the implications, whatever. ok
> So, we have an inescapable fact that no matter what else we do, we are > going to have vehicles traveling at different speeds interacting with each [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > predictable manner to allow them to plan their moves ahead of time rather > than being purely reactive to other traffic. true, to an extent anyway.
> Given all that, the best set of rules that the various people who have > devoted any serious amount to this problem have come up with is STKR and > KRETP. (assuming driving on the right hand side of the roadway as we do > in the US.) These rules make sense for several reasons: I totally disagree. KRETP laws are an extension of two lane rules applied to multilane highway. Very little thought went into them.
> 1) On a limited access roadway, traffic generally exits and enters on the > right. Therefore, it makes sense to try to stratify the flow of traffic > so that the slowest traffic ends up in the rightmost lanes so that > vehicles to not have to accelerate or brake excessively to enter the flow > of traffic. No it doesn't. It may be how you were taught to drive, but it actually makes very little sense to put as much traffic as possible at the merge points.
> 2) Since the slowest traffic ought to be on the right, by necessity > traffic wishing to pass must do so to the left of slower traffic. It > makes no sense to have a different rule for the rightmost lane than any > other, so it is logical to extend this to all lanes. It isn't logical at all. It is what you were taught. If you want to be logical the best thing to do would be put most of the traffic in the left and center lane. Use the right most lane for people entering and exiting.
> 3) In the interest of efficient traffic flow, it makes sense that slower > traffic should yield to faster traffic, until such time as all lanes are > fully utilized. Why? It seems to me that faster traffic should yeild to slower traffic, unless the slower traffic is slow to the point, of being less than a predetermined speed.
This is also an extension of right lane behavior, where
> traffic merging in is required to yield to through traffic. Thus, > applying this rule across the entire roadway simply states that one cannot > change lanes to the left if one will impede an approaching vehicle by > doing so. True but these rules also assume that the traffic on the highway is traveling at the speed limit. Entering traffic should enter at the speed limit or close to it. Than if necessary slow down slightly to fit into the stream, or speed up to stay in front of it.
> 4) Once you have accepted the three points above, by necessity to > accomplish the goals set forth in 1) and 3), you end up with (drum roll > please) STKR/KRETP. Well you certainly did a good job of describing the mindset that left several states with these silly laws.
>>>>>>Than he has to >>>>>>go 10 MPH faster than all the other cars in his lane. How do you do [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > nate donquijote1954 - 17 Jun 2005 15:38 GMT > > 2) Since the slowest traffic ought to be on the right, by necessity > > traffic wishing to pass must do so to the left of slower traffic. It [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > logical the best thing to do would be put most of the traffic in the left > and center lane. Use the right most lane for people entering and exiting. OK, what is logical then is that we keep doing what we do: BRAVE YOUR WAY AROUND THE CROWD OF VEHICLES ON THE ROAD USING THE OVERPOWERING MASS OF YOUR VEHICLE. This is also known as THE LAW OF THE JUNGLE.
N8N - 17 Jun 2005 16:26 GMT <snip>
> >>>>>>>Can we at least agree that KRETP is a good principle and is conducive > >>>>>>>to faster yet safer traffic flow? [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Are you referring to obeying the speed limit as impeding the movement of > other drivers? If so we are miles apart. Not at all. I'm referring to impeding the movement of other drivers, completely independently of speed.
> > Secondly, no matter what the speed limits are, and regardless of whether > > or not the majority of the drivers on a given multi-lane road obey them, [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > I totally disagree. KRETP laws are an extension of two lane rules applied to > multilane highway. Very little thought went into them. If so little thought went into them, why are they used in nearly every country with a developed highway system (OK, KLETP in countries where they drive on the left) as well as most US states? Why is driving so much more pleasant in areas where KRETP is commonplace, regardless of where one falls on the speed bell curve? (I realize that as a regular RAD reader and opponent of artificially slow speed limits, one might assume that I often am on the high end of the speed distribution for wherever I am driving. That is not always a safe assumption; I have driven in places where I have been slower traffic, sometimes due to driving a large or heavily loaded truck, or because the locals had lead feet. Heck, I lived in Michigan for about a year :) I still prefer KRETP even in those situations.)
> > 1) On a limited access roadway, traffic generally exits and enters on the > > right. Therefore, it makes sense to try to stratify the flow of traffic [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > No it doesn't. It may be how you were taught to drive, but it actually makes > very little sense to put as much traffic as possible at the merge points. Why would it be "as much traffic as possible?" Generally the distribution of speed on a freeway conforms to a bell curve, therefore on a six lane freeway the majority of traffic would be spending most of its time in the *middle* lane. The rightmost lane will have a lot of the heavy trucks and slower drivers, but the majority of traffic will be passing them.
> > 2) Since the slowest traffic ought to be on the right, by necessity > > traffic wishing to pass must do so to the left of slower traffic. It [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > logical the best thing to do would be put most of the traffic in the left > and center lane. Use the right most lane for people entering and exiting. Thus creating the typical condition commonly seen around here where people merge onto the freeway at below the normal travel speed, and immediately changing lanes to the left while still not up to speed. Hilarity ensues. The closest I've ever come to stacking up my car on a freeway happened on an almost-deserted road, where I encountered two of these boneheads at the same time.
> > 3) In the interest of efficient traffic flow, it makes sense that slower > > traffic should yield to faster traffic, until such time as all lanes are [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > unless the slower traffic is slow to the point, of being less than a > predetermined speed. KISS. When something works well, why add complexity to it? And who determines what that predetermined speed is, anyway? KRETP/STKR works no matter what speed the drivers involved are traveling; your method leaves a lot up to the interpretation of what an appropriate speed is for the drivers involved, often leading to conflict.
> This is also an extension of right lane behavior, where > > traffic merging in is required to yield to through traffic. Thus, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > limit or close to it. Than if necessary slow down slightly to fit into the > stream, or speed up to stay in front of it. No, it assumes no such thing. Although I do agree with your assessment of how to merge properly when traffic is flowing at or near the speed limit.
> > 4) Once you have accepted the three points above, by necessity to > > accomplish the goals set forth in 1) and 3), you end up with (drum roll > > please) STKR/KRETP. > > Well you certainly did a good job of describing the mindset that left > several states with these silly laws. Why thank you, but a significant number of people who have spent a lot of time thinking about and studying such things don't agree with you that those laws are "silly."
> >>>>>>Than he has to > >>>>>>go 10 MPH faster than all the other cars in his lane. How do you do [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > > > nate I see you didn't address this part...
Another benefit for KRETP that I'm surprised you didn't pick up on is it makes it nearly trivially easy for a safety-minded traffic cop to pick out the fastest drivers for enforcement. If someone is traveling 15 MPH or more over the 85th percentile speed of traffic (where the risk curve rises enough that it can be said that one's speed might be truly unsafe for conditions - see http://www.sha.state.md.us/safety/oots/trafficsignalsandlaws/speedlimits2.asp ) it's a safe bet that unless traffic is exceptionally light (where one might make the case that such a speed could be safe) that driver is going to be in the leftmost lane. Picking out the *fastest* drivers for enforcement would be positive for all involved; currently pretty much any driver on the road is at risk of a speeding ticket.
nate
Guardenman - 16 Jun 2005 22:35 GMT > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] > country with a developed highway system (OK, KLETP in countries where > they drive on the left) as well as most US states? Do you or anyone else have nuimbers to back this claim? I don't measn to sound arguementitive I am just curious.
Why is driving so
> much more pleasant in areas where KRETP is commonplace, regardless of > where one falls on the speed bell curve? It is not.
(I realize that as a regular
> RAD reader and opponent of artificially slow speed limits, one might > assume that I often am on the high end of the speed distribution for [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > feet. Heck, I lived in Michigan for about a year :) I still prefer > KRETP even in those situations.) While we are clearing up assumptions. I think it is reasonable to keep very slow traffic to one side of the road. Or even outlaw it on certain roads. I don't think that means people obeying the speed limit, should have to go out of their way, to accommodate people, who ignore it. If you don't like speed limits fine. Work with the legislator to get them changed. Please don't get mad at the people who choose to obey them, no matter what lane they are in.
>> > 1) On a limited access roadway, traffic generally exits and enters on >> > the [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > the heavy trucks and slower drivers, but the majority of traffic will > be passing them. wouldn't itmake more sense if those heavy trucks could just drive at one speed and not have to worry about people trying to merge onto the highway with them. On a six lane (with KRETP laws in effect) they should be in the second and third lanes from the right.
>> > 2) Since the slowest traffic ought to be on the right, by necessity >> > traffic wishing to pass must do so to the left of slower traffic. It [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > freeway happened on an almost-deserted road, where I encountered two of > these boneheads at the same time. Don't I know it. I hate it when they try to pass while entering the highway.
>> > 3) In the interest of efficient traffic flow, it makes sense that >> > slower [quoted text clipped - 116 lines] > it makes it nearly trivially easy for a safety-minded traffic cop to > pick out the fastest drivers for enforcement. That is already done.
If someone is traveling
> 15 MPH or more over the 85th percentile speed of traffic (where the > risk curve rises enough that it can be said that one's speed might be [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > for enforcement would be positive for all involved; currently pretty > much any driver on the road is at risk of a speeding ticket. Now you are getting into civil rights issues. Lets say we do it the way you suggest (it is a good method). I am a white southern cop. suppose the next six drivers I "pick out as the most dangerous" are all black. Sooner or later someone is going to start saying I'm a racist. Than someone is going to say our methods are discriminatory. randomly picking out people going above a posted limit makes it fair for everyone. Unfortunately in this day and age, that is how we are forced to think. Pass some laws that allow me to sue someone, for calling me a racist. Than we can talk. Until than we have to CYA.
> nate Daniel J. Stern - 17 Jun 2005 19:38 GMT > I don't think that means people obeying the speed limit, should have to > go out of their way, to accommodate people, who ignore it. If you don't > like speed limits fine. Work with the legislator to get them changed. > Please don't get mad at the people who choose to obey them, no matter > what lane they are in. Unless you have a badge, a gun, and a pursuit package Clown Victoria, it is not your job to enforce the speed limit in any way, shape or form.
donquijote1954 - 17 Jun 2005 20:07 GMT > > I don't think that means people obeying the speed limit, should have to > > go out of their way, to accommodate people, who ignore it. If you don't [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Unless you have a badge, a gun, and a pursuit package Clown Victoria, it > is not your job to enforce the speed limit in any way, shape or form. Even then it's questionable, but remember the gun... ;)
Guardenman - 17 Jun 2005 23:25 GMT >> I don't think that means people obeying the speed limit, should have to >> go out of their way, to accommodate people, who ignore it. If you don't [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Unless you have a badge, a gun, and a pursuit package Clown Victoria, it > is not your job to enforce the speed limit in any way, shape or form. Does having a blazer with a K-9 package count? If not please respond immediately because I would really like to take the weekend off.
|
|