Leafs giving Leafs a bad name !!

[Stoaty]

The difference between 65mph and 55 mph is 10.2 seconds per mile. So even with that "5 mile" (LOL) stretch, it would have been not even one minute saved. I'm thinking she's already spent more than that raging here in the LEAF forum.

.......

If she really wants to spend more time with her family, she might want to heed the laws of the State of California AND the laws of physics. It might be prudent too, instead of snapping pictures with her smartphone, which is from my understanding illegal to do while driving under California law, and instead concentrate on driving and arriving alive both for her and for everybody else she is endangering.

Well said.

To be clear, this is not really about the speed someone else is driving. It's about a sense of entitlement.

 

[wwhitney]

You're overtaken in the HOV lane the same as you are in any other lane; it's passing that's impossible.

The first google definition of 'overtake' is 'catch up with and pass while traveling in the same direction,' which is how I've been using it. You seem to be using it as just 'catch up'.

Then we disagree as to what constitutes courtesy to other drivers. If I want to drive 55 when everyone else in that lane wants to drive faster, why do my preferences outweigh all of theirs?

If _everybody_ else wants to faster, then I agree their preferences should outweigh one person's preference. But you have no way of knowing that, it's just than the faster drivers catch up to the slower drivers, even if it's 50/50.

The way I look at it is this: what behavior will minimize the collective time spent? If I can get over and it's no trouble, of course I will. But if getting over is going to cost me more time that you will save driving up to the next person going slower than you want to go, that would be a net waste of time. In the examples I've been envisioning, the 55 mph driver moving over would waste a lot time dealing with the slower traffic, maybe even being stuck in the regular lanes between two HOV access areas.

As an example of someone violating the 5-car rule [. . .] despite numerous opportunities to pull over safely and let people by.

You give a good example of the reason for the 5-car rule. But the HOV lane doesn't have pullouts.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[knightarmor]

I have to say best thread I've seen in a while!

As a human being who is courteous and believes in treating other people the way you want to be treated I follow this with driving as well.

It's very simple. If the vehicle in front of me is going slower than I'd like to be going I don't tailgate but I do approach and hang out for a while (who knows what the actual timing is or distance is who really cares?). If the vehicle in front of me does not pull over to let me by I safely make a pass.

When I am in the left lane if a vehicle is approaching me from behind regardless of how fast they are driving (NOTE: Sometimes they are going WAY TOO FAST for me to feel comfortable to get out of their way because I have no clue what they are planning to do) I safely get out of their way before they even reach me and yes I do pull back into the left lane. This is what I would expect another driver to do for me. It doesn't always happen but life isn't fair and blah blah blah.

And yes I do this even when I am in the HOV lane. I like to drive fast but I practice safe and courteous driving (to the best of my ability).

With all of that said I hope everyone here has a great weekend and enjoys their Leaf no matter how fast or slow you go.

(IN BEFORE THE TOPIC GETS LOCKED!!)

 

[TimLee]

...To be clear, this is not really about the speed someone else is driving. It's about a sense of entitlement.

+10

We all see that problem all too often when driving.

Like the moron I saw make six hazardous lane changes in less than 1000 feet yesterday.

Or the moron that presumed the LEAF would be slow and when it wasn't nearly hit me passing when he was running out of room.

Still amazes me that HOV got abandoned and used for other purposes which are counter productive to what they were meant to do.

And now the entitled that bought that inappropriate privilege to use them are irate over not going 65 to 75 instead of 55, when the non-HOV is going 20 to 25 :?:

 

[aluminumwelder]

everyone shoud drive less than 55mph because
#1 its safer WAYYYY SAFER. Survivial rates are much better at lower speeds.
#2 it uses less power and thus less fuel.

the OP is ridiculous, taking pictures while driving just shows how careless and rude they are by endangering others just so they can make some hyhped up post.

 

[Nubo]

When I am in the left lane ... I safely get out of their way before they even reach me and yes I do pull back into the left lane. This is what I would expect another driver to do for me. It doesn't always happen but life isn't fair and blah blah blah.

And yes I do this even when I am in the HOV lane.

Be aware, in the OP's area (So Cal), most of the HOV lanes are restricted-access and you can only enter and exit at certain points. You can't just "get over", and furthermore if you do exit at one of the allowable spots, you're potentially faced with a long sit in gridlock before you can re-enter the HOV lane. That's a bit much to ask.

 

[Nubo]

These sort of discussions always seem to center around an example of someone going 55 or 50 in the "fast lane".

But let's please be honest. This is a relatively rare situation. I'm sure someone will pipe up that they see it "all the time". I've driven lots of miles in lots of cities and I'd say I encounter this situation maybe twice a year.

What's far more prevalent are people being obnoxious and often downright criminally reckless because they want to go 10mph over the limit and the person in front of them is "only" going 5 mph over the limit. Or they want to go 5 mph over the limit and the person in front is (gasp) "only" doing the speed limit. This happens CONSTANTLY, everywhere.

People use the "doing 50" example because they feel then they have a clear case. When in reality they spend most of their time at a slow boil because people just won't get out of their way, and they believe the Law, By Golly, gives speeders an extra-special right of way. And they'll argue with a straight face that it's the people obeying the speed limit that are the dangerous ones.

I'm all for common courtesy. But if you roll up on my ass and start waxing my bumper, you don't deserve courtesy. You deserve a jail sentence and you're certainly going to get no satisfaction from me.

 

[Stoaty]

everyone shoud drive less than 55mph because
#1 its safer WAYYYY SAFER. Survivial rates are much better at lower speeds.

Yup. See here: http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/enforce/Speed_Forum_Presentations/Ferguson.pdf

 

[TomT]

Unfortunately, this country fails to comprehend and practice what the rest of the world knows and does: Generally, the left lane is for passing only. Move back to the right after you do so. One of the many reasons why I love driving in Germany!

When I am in the left lane if a vehicle is approaching me from behind regardless of how fast they are driving (NOTE: Sometimes they are going WAY TOO FAST for me to feel comfortable to get out of their way because I have no clue what they are planning to do) I safely get out of their way before they even reach me and yes I do pull back into the left lane.

 

[GRA]

You're overtaken in the HOV lane the same as you are in any other lane; it's passing that's impossible.

The first google definition of 'overtake' is 'catch up with and pass while traveling in the same direction,' which is how I've been using it. You seem to be using it as just 'catch up'.

Of course I am, because the law clearly defines them as two separate acts:

21654. (a) Notwithstanding the prima facie speed limits, any
vehicle proceeding upon a highway at a speed less than the normal
speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time shall be
driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable
to the right-hand edge or curb, except when overtaking and passing
another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing
for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or
driveway.

Clearly, if you are doing 55 when everyone else in the lane wants to do 65, you aren't overtaking and passing, and thus must move to the right.

Then we disagree as to what constitutes courtesy to other drivers. If I want to drive 55 when everyone else in that lane wants to drive faster, why do my preferences outweigh all of theirs?

If _everybody_ else wants to faster, then I agree their preferences should outweigh one person's preference. But you have no way of knowing that, it's just than the faster drivers catch up to the slower drivers, even if it's 50/50.

The way I look at it is this: what behavior will minimize the collective time spent? If I can get over and it's no trouble, of course I will. But if getting over is going to cost me more time that you will save driving up to the next person going slower than you want to go, that would be a net waste of time. In the examples I've been envisioning, the 55 mph driver moving over would waste a lot time dealing with the slower traffic, maybe even being stuck in the regular lanes between two HOV access areas.

The thing is, it's not up to you to decide what's efficient for everyone else, only your own actions as long as they don't impede others from making the same decisions for themselves. In the example you give, you are placing your own views of what is reasonable above that of all other drivers. Remember, as the late, great George Carlin observed, "Have you ever noticed that everyone driving slower than you is an idiot, and everyone going faster than you is a maniac?" See below.

As an example of someone violating the 5-car rule [. . .] despite numerous opportunities to pull over safely and let people by.

You give a good example of the reason for the 5-car rule. But the HOV lane doesn't have pullouts.

Cheers, Wayne

No, it doesn't, and it also doesn't have an exception to the reg cited above, as the subsequent section as well as another show:

21654(b) If a vehicle is being driven at a speed less than the normal
speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time, and is
not being driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as
practicable to the right-hand edge or curb, it shall constitute prima
facie evidence that the driver is operating the vehicle in violation
of subdivision (a) of this section.

22400. (a) No person shall drive upon a highway at such a slow
speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of
traffic unless the reduced speed is necessary for safe operation,
because of a grade, or in compliance with law.

If the normal and reasonable movement of traffic in the HOV lane at the time is 65 (or 70, or 80 ftm) and you chose to do 55, you are in violation of both 21654(a) and 22400.

Anyhow, I think we've reached the stage of repeating the same arguments only louder, so it's probably best to just agree to disagree.

 

[GRA]

everyone shoud drive less than 55mph because
#1 its safer WAYYYY SAFER. Survivial rates are much better at lower speeds.
#2 it uses less power and thus less fuel.

the OP is ridiculous, taking pictures while driving just shows how careless and rude they are by endangering others just so they can make some hyhped up post.

I agree that taking a cell phone pic while driving is dangerous. As to speed, sure, driving slower is safer (as long as everyone else is doing so), but that ignores that people use cars for transportation instead of some other mode because they're the fastest, most convenient and flexible form of transportation available to them. If you really want to make the roads safer, perhaps you'd recommend that we return to the early days of motoring, and re-institute something like a red flag rule. From the wiki, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_traffic_laws:

Red flag law in the UK
Main article: Locomotive Acts

In United Kingdom, the Locomotive Acts (also known as Red Flag Laws) was a policy requiring self-propelled vehicles to be led by a pedestrian waving a red flag or carrying a lantern[citation needed] to warn bystanders of the vehicle's approach.

Firstly, at least three persons shall be employed to drive or conduct such locomotive, and if more than two waggons or carriages he attached thereto, an additional person shall be employed, who shall take charge of such waggons or carriages :
Secondly, one of such persons, while any locomotive is in motion, shall precede such locomotive on foot by not less than sixty yards, and shall carry a red flag constantly displayed, and shall warn the riders and drivers of horses of the approach of such locomotives, and shall signal the driver thereof when it shall be necessary to stop, and shall assist horses, and carriages drawn by horses, passing the same,

The Red Flag Law was repealed in 1896, by which time the internal combustion engine was well into its infancy.[1]

Red flag laws in the US

In the United States, the state of Vermont passed a similar flurry of Red Flag Laws in 1894. The most infamous of the Red Flag Laws was enacted in Pennsylvania circa 1896, when legislators unanimously passed a bill through both houses of the state legislature, which would require all motorists piloting their "horseless carriages", upon chance encounters with cattle or livestock to (1) immediately stop the vehicle, (2) "immediately and as rapidly as possible... disassemble the automobile," and (3) "conceal the various components out of sight, behind nearby bushes" until equestrian or livestock is sufficiently pacified.[1] The bill did not become law, as Pennsylvania's governor used an executive veto.

Enacting such a law today would cause the highway death toll to plummet. Are you recommending such a law (after all, your main concern is safety, right?), and do you think there would be much support for it? We tried a national 55 mph limit, and look how well that worked (ca. 15-18% compliance).

Now, we could re-engineer all our freeways to make them less safe at high speeds, which would actually cause people to drive slower, and I'm a fan of that on urban streets (see 'Traffic Calming': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_calming and 'Complete Streets': http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/complete-streets/complete-streets-fundamentals/complete-streets-faq etc.), but freeways are limited access, divided, motor vehicle-only roads, and intended to minimize travel time for motor vehicles. Artificially restricting speeds to well below the design speed of the road just ensures that people will speed whenever they think they can get away with it.

Of course, if you really want to make the roads safer, we can just ban motorized vehicles altogether. Human-powered vehicles not only travel more slowly, they have a lot less mass, so the kinetic energy is far less. And the human body has been 'engineered' to withstand impacts at speeds up to about 20 mph, because that's about the maximum speed we can move on foot (Usain Bolt averaged a bit over 23 mph when he set the 100M record). Alternatively, we could just limit all motorized vehicles to max. speeds of 20 mph, because the death rate of pedestrians and cyclists hit by cars increases exponentially above that impact speed. Do you support this?

 

[wwhitney]

Of course I am, because the law clearly defines them as two separate acts:

Nah, it's just being verbose. Definitions aren't made in passing.

Clearly, if you are doing 55 when everyone else in the lane wants to do 65, you aren't overtaking and passing, and thus must move to the right.

On the contrary, if you are doing 55 in the HOV lane and the other lanes are going slower, you are passing everyone in all the other lanes, and so you meet the exemption in the law.

The thing is, it's not up to you to decide what's efficient for everyone else, only your own actions as long as they don't impede others from making the same decisions for themselves.

You are coming up behind me and implicitly asking me to move over when I have no obligation to (none of the laws you quoted apply, all the other lanes are going slower). I will help you if the benefit you get exceeds the cost to me. I will decline to help you if the benefit you get is less than the cost to me. Fundamentally I have to make that judgement. In the situations we are discussing, I judge that your benefit will be less than the cost to me, and I decline to help you at a cost to me.

21654(b) If a vehicle is being driven at a speed less than the normal
speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time [. . .]

If you are going 55 in the HOV lane and the other lanes are going slower, this section and others with the same language obviously don't apply. You are driving above the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction, you are the fastest car around!

Anyhow, I think we've reached the stage of repeating the same arguments only louder, so it's probably best to just agree to disagree.

I'm happy to continue the discussion, as I have found formulating my last two responses to you helpful in forcing me to better articulate my thinking.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[Stoaty]

We tried a national 55 mph limit, and look how well that worked (ca. 15-18% compliance).

Yes, it only saved an estimated 20,000-30,000 lives. Absolutely awful!

See: http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/enforce/Speed_Forum_Presentations/Ferguson.pdf

 

[mbender]

I have to say best thread I've seen in a while!

+2 I especially like the give and take between 'ww' and GRA!
Usually I find myself siding with GRA and his even-tempered and well-articulated analysis of various issues, but in this case, I think he's met his match! ;-)

As for some of the others exchanging vitriol back and forth, we might require a double-yellow line and physical barrier! (metaphorically speaking, of course)

 

[GRA]

We tried a national 55 mph limit, and look how well that worked (ca. 15-18% compliance).

Yes, it only saved an estimated 20,000-30,000 lives. Absolutely awful!

See: http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/enforce/Speed_Forum_Presentations/Ferguson.pdf

Sure, it saved lives, and people hated it and forced the government to get rid of it. Obviously, the reduction in deaths and injuries wasn't considered worth the loss in time by the majority of the public (feel free to calculate how many extra years of people's lives were spent driving at 55 mph instead of at a higher speed), since time spent is the one thing we can't recover. Higher limits don't preclude any individual from driving slower if they chose, provided they don't impede anyone else.

 

[GRA]

Of course I am, because the law clearly defines them as two separate acts:

Nah, it's just being verbose. Definitions aren't made in passing.

Then we disagree; I think it means exactly what it says. If someone is driving faster than you in the same lane and closes on you from behind, they are overtaking you, at least in my book. What they can't do, in the HOV lane situation, is legally and safely pass you by changing lanes, so they must slow down to your speed, and that's impeding traffic.

FWIW, here's some more definitions of overtake. Both of our interpretations are given:

1. to catch up with in traveling or pursuit; draw even with: By taking a cab to the next town, we managed to overtake and board the train.

2. to catch up with and pass, as in a race; move by: He overtook the leader three laps from the finish.

transitive verb

1
a : to catch up with
b : to catch up with and pass by

And so on. Pass, OTOH, has only one definition in this context.

Clearly, if you are doing 55 when everyone else in the lane wants to do 65, you aren't overtaking and passing, and thus must move to the right.

On the contrary, if you are doing 55 in the HOV lane and the other lanes are going slower, you are passing everyone in all the other lanes, and so you meet the exemption in the law.

Not if no one can legally pass you, you aren't.

The thing is, it's not up to you to decide what's efficient for everyone else, only your own actions as long as they don't impede others from making the same decisions for themselves.

You are coming up behind me and implicitly asking me to move over when I have no obligation to (none of the laws you quoted apply, all the other lanes are going slower). I will help you if the benefit you get exceeds the cost to me. I will decline to help you if the benefit you get is less than the cost to me. Fundamentally I have to make that judgement. In the situations we are discussing, I judge that your benefit will be less than the cost to me, and I decline to help you at a cost to me.

And that's where we fundamentally disagree; I believe that you are arrogating a right to yourself that doesn't exist in law, i.e. to determine how fast other people may drive. If there were multiple HOV lanes and you were traveling in the leftmost one and being overtaken, we would agree that you would be in violation of the law by not moving over so that people could pass you, yes? To me, and I believe the law as written backs me up, if there aren't multiple HOV lanes but there are lanes of slower moving traffic to the right of the HOV lane, the same rule applies, and you are required to move over (or speed up).

21654(b) If a vehicle is being driven at a speed less than the normal
speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time [. . .]

If you are going 55 in the HOV lane and the other lanes are going slower, this section and others with the same language obviously don't apply. You are driving above the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction, you are the fastest car around!

Clearly you are not 'the fastest car around,' if people going faster than you are overtaking you in the same lane.

Anyhow, I think we've reached the stage of repeating the same arguments only louder, so it's probably best to just agree to disagree.

I'm happy to continue the discussion, as I have found formulating my last two responses to you helpful in forcing me to better articulate my thinking.

Cheers, Wayne

As I wrote above, I believe we've reached the stage of diminishing returns, but thought I'd go one post further and now leave the last word to you, as I see no way to bridge the gap between our points of view on what the law requires, or what constitutes an acceptable level of courtesy to other drivers. And of course, what the law says and how it's actually interpreted by society can be very different. What I need to do is get down to the local law library and see what legal construction is being put on the relevant rules, i.e. how the law is in fact applied in HOV lanes, and whether that differs between open access NorCal-style HOV lanes and closed access SoCal style lanes. One last question: Do you believe that the two styles allow/require different behaviors by drivers', or the same?

 

[wwhitney]

FWIW, here's some more definitions of overtake. Both of our interpretations are given:

Good to know, thank you.

On the contrary, if you are doing 55 in the HOV lane and the other lanes are going slower, you are passing everyone in all the other lanes, and so you meet the exemption in the law.

Not if no one can legally pass you, you aren't.

Let me bold the exception for you:

"21654. (a) Notwithstanding the prima facie speed limits, any vehicle proceeding upon a highway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time shall be driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway."

If I am in the HOV lane and passing all the vehicles in all of the other lanes, then I clearly meet that exception. I am "overtaking and passing another vehicle" and therefore not in violation of CVC 21654. I don't see any other way to read that language.

Moreover, the law refers to the "normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time." That refers to all the cars moving in that direction, there is no language supporting lane by lane consideration. If I'm in the HOV lane going 55 and all the other lanes are going slower, I'm well above the normal speed of traffic, I'm probably in the 95 percentile at least. (I agree, I'm not quite the fastest.) That rebuts your argument about a violation of CVC 22400, as well.

And that's where we fundamentally disagree; I believe that you are arrogating a right to yourself that doesn't exist in law, i.e. to determine how fast other people may drive.

I agree that there's a fundamental conflict between our interests: I want to go 55 in the HOV lane, you want to go 65 in the HOV lane, and once you catch up to me, we can't both do that. So one of has to go slower than we want and waste time--either I have to move over and get stuck in the slower traffic in the regular lanes, or you have to slow down to 55.

You seem convinced that I should waste some time instead of you, but there's basically no societal mechanism for assigning the hit. The law doesn't say I have to slow down. I proposed courtesy wise, I should slow down if it costs me less time than you gain. But you don't even accept that, you always want me to be the one to waste time. That just strikes me as selfish.

whether that differs between open access NorCal-style HOV lanes and closed access SoCal style lanes. One last question: Do you believe that the two styles allow/require different behaviors by drivers', or the same?

Legally, I think the law supports my position in both cases.

Courtesy-wise, in the closed access SoCal style HOV lanes, my argument is very strong, as the cost for the 55 mph driver to move over may be to miss the HOV lane for one whole section, which is extremely high and dwarfs the benefit the 65 mph driver would get. In the open style HOV lanes, there will be a lot more options for a 55 mph driver to get over and then get back without being stuck very long.

BTW, when the speed difference is really large, say 55-65 mph in the HOV lanes, and 20 mph in the regular lanes, I can imagine that if the 55 mph driver gets over to let the 65 mph pass it is actually a loss for everybody. That 55 mph driver is going to have to slow down to 20 mph to merge, and that's going to waste everybody's time. It may end up wasting more time than the 65 mph driver later gains by speeding up until they hit the next 55 mph driver.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[Stoaty]

Sure, it saved lives, and people hated it and forced the government to get rid of it. Obviously, the reduction in deaths and injuries wasn't considered worth the loss in time by the majority of the public (feel free to calculate how many extra years of people's lives were spent driving at 55 mph instead of at a higher speed), since time spent is the one thing we can't recover. Higher limits don't preclude any individual from driving slower if they chose, provided they don't impede anyone else.

You just said that most people didn't obey the law, but it still saved 20,000+ laws. Seems like a pretty good law to me if it could save that many lives with less than 20% of people obeying the law. My guess is that they drove 60-65 MPH, which is a heck of a lot safer than 70-85 MPH (as some states allow).

 

[sub3marathonman]

We tried a national 55 mph limit, and look how well that worked (ca. 15-18% compliance).

Yes, it only saved an estimated 20,000-30,000 lives. Absolutely awful!

See: http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/enforce/Speed_Forum_Presentations/Ferguson.pdf

Sure, it saved lives, and people hated it and forced the government to get rid of it. Obviously, the reduction in deaths and injuries wasn't considered worth the loss in time by the majority of the public (feel free to calculate how many extra years of people's lives were spent driving at 55 mph instead of at a higher speed), since time spent is the one thing we can't recover. Higher limits don't preclude any individual from driving slower if they chose, provided they don't impede anyone else.

And remember, that's 20K+ lives in just 4 years! To put it in perspective, Osama Bin Laden, had he been sophisticated enough to convince Congress to raise the national speed limit 10 mph more, would have killed and kept on killing many multiples more Americans than the 9/11 attacks. And to just say well, 5000 or 6000 lives / year, we just don't want to waste OUR time to save them.

Stoaty also referred to the NHTSA report, which is still compelling even ten years after it was compiled.

"The relationship between vehicle speed and crash severity is unequivocal and based on the laws of physics." Pretty obvious, but lost on a significant group. Two pages later, the Probability of Fatality graph, which shows that your probability of death increases exponentially, by a factor of 4, if not more according to an earlier study. I didn't know it was that dramatic and it is stunning. At 71 mph, it is certain death, at 60 mph, you've got a 50-50 chance. At 30 mph, you don't even have to worry about it. The report also mentioned that after the limit was raised up to 65 mph, the number of drivers exceeding 65 mph increased 48%, once again proving the obvious, that many people go 10 mph over the limit with little fear of penalty, and more ominously increasing the standard deviation in speed by 0.7 mph, which is cited as a valid factor in traffic accidents.

It is just a mathematical inevitability, at 10 seconds / mile between 65 mph and 55 mph, you're really not going to save much time over a short commute. As an extreme example, back in the day, you could drive to the store 2.5 miles away, with two or three lights, I could run there, and you'd get there maybe five minutes quicker. You've got to go very fast for a long time to save any real time, but there could be a price to pay, as the following somewhat OT story points out.

Two girls went to college about 200 miles from home. They liked to come back and visit over the weekends, so late one night they were driving back at 90 mph or so, with essentially no traffic on the road. A tire blew out, of course the driver lost control at that speed, they hit a tree, and both were killed. But that's not all. Then there were the lawsuits, against the tire manufacturer, against the driver's estate from the other girl's parents, and in the end of course essentially nothing was accomplished. But it took such a toll on the driver's mom that it both figuratively and literally killed her in the following months and years as she was devastated. These three were all fine members of society, with great potential, that were lost in this one incident. And really no matter a person's standing in the society, they shouldn't be killed in a car crash.

One other detail here that has been overlooked is the research done by RonDawg, pointing out that the HOV lane was ending a couple hundred feet ahead, and the thus absurd claim by the OP that the lane was open for "5 miles."

The debate though between GRA and wwhitney though is valid for HOV lanes, with wwhitney winning the debate with overwhelming facts and logical interpretation of the law. GRA cited 21656, which starts off with "On a two lane highway," which clearly isn't the case here or on any of the other expressways. And as much as GRA apparently wishes, citing CVC 22351, the traffic flow argument is not valid for anything over the posted speed limit, which is extremely clearly mandated in the traffic law right before it: "CVC 22350. No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property. 9/20/1963," unless you can show there was no traffic speed survey within the five year period and what the 85th percentile speed was so that essentially a jurisdiction hadn't set up a speed trap. See this link for a pretty good example: http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=182625

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

I love my leaf, but if you're driving in the carpool and going 55, you're a douchebag ! Some clown, in a Leaf was doing 55 in the car pool lane with no one in front of him and about 30 of us behind him ! Just plain rude ! Don't be that guy ! I hear it from my friends all the time abut electric cars going slow in the carpool lane, just sit in traffic if you don't want to do the speed limit !

dont blame the driver when its your legislators that caused this