Leafs giving Leafs a bad name !!

[DaveinOlyWA]

Hey....maybe that Leaf was on VLB, and was trying to conserve electricity until he reached an exit?? Or, maybe he had a mechanical malfunction of some kind. At any rate, I can't find any requirement in the CA Vehicle Code to drive "at or above" the posted speed limit.

You didn't look hard enough. From the CVC:

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.
(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.

often quoted, ALWAYS wrong. at 55 mph, he is likely going 30+ mph faster than the neighboring lane. such a difference in speed is a huge safety risk and he is well within his right to drive 55

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

Or any other speed up to and exceeding the speed limit. As a highway patrolman told my dad many decades ago, "I don't care if you're speeding 100 mph, if the traffic's doing 105, you shouldn't be impeding them." That's why the law is written as it is, to prevent left- (and middle) lane bandits from impeding the free-flow of traffic.

this pretty much says everything I need to know from you...

 

[DaveEV]

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.

21654: The HOV lane in question is separate and with heavy traffic to the right moving significantly slower than HOV traffic, it's not reasonable to move over as others have stated.
22400: The person driving 55 mph while traffic to the right is driving significantly slower obviously feels the slower speed is required for safety.

As long as the person in the HOV lane is moving significantly faster than the traffic in the regular traffic lanes, I don't see any issue as one can easily say that moving faster only creates a safety risk either due to people crossing the double-yellow or encountering suddenly merging vehicles at a legal HOV lane entry/exit point (I have witnessed both dangerous scenarios before).

Now if they are moving the same or similar speed as traffic to the right with no-one ahead and many cars behind, then yes, they should move over at the next opportunity.

 

[GRA]

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).

Prohibition saved lots of lives too; didn't mean it wasn't a bad law. Perhaps our definition of bad laws is the issue: To me, a bad law is one that either can't be effectively enforced or is routinely ignored/flouted by the average person as well as law enforcement personnel, thus bringing into contempt laws in general. I've given examples above of former red flag laws that would reduce auto deaths to near zero, and asked if anyone were in favor of re-introducing them. Or, if we really counted reducing auto deaths as the overriding issue, we could just ban autos completely, as walking, bicycling and public transit are all much safer than traveling by car (provided that there are no cars around to run into people). While we're at it, let's also (re-) ban alcohol, smoking, unsafe sex, falling in love (or out of it), all-you-can eat buffets and fried foods, and any number of other activities that kill far more people on a yearly basis than driving cars fast do. Dancing is still considered an instrument of the devil in some parts of the country, so perhaps that one should also be banned. Then there's some literature that the government or some group or individual may not think is appropriate for you or I to read; it might cause us to do something that unnecessarily risks our life, and heaven forbid any of us do anything risky.

The thing is, in a democracy all effective laws are based on a social compact; they are effective because most members of that society agree that they are sensible, and thus most people abide by them. Prohibition, the national 55 mph limit and "the War on Drugs" are bad laws because they fail that test; the costs are seen by society as greater than the advantages, even if they save lives. Sometimes it takes a while to achieve a consensus on that, but two out of three are gone, and the other is (finally) being modified into something more sensible, and I suspect it will eventually disappear as well.

 

[GRA]

Or any other speed up to and exceeding the speed limit. As a highway patrolman told my dad many decades ago, "I don't care if you're speeding 100 mph, if the traffic's doing 105, you shouldn't be impeding them." That's why the law is written as it is, to prevent left- (and middle) lane bandits from impeding the free-flow of traffic.

this pretty much says everything I need to know from you...

I think you mean "everything you need to know about the attitude of the state legislature, who wrote the law, and the highway patrol who enforce it.

 

[Stoaty]

While we're at it, let's also (re-) ban alcohol, smoking, unsafe sex, falling in love (or out of it), all-you can eat buffets and fried foods, and any number of other activities that kill far more people on a yearly basis than driving cars fast do. Dancing is still considered an instrument of the devil in some parts of the country, so perhaps that one should also be banned. Then there's some literature that the government or some group or individual may not think is appropriate for you or I to read; it might cause us to do something that unnecessarily risks our life, and heaven forbid any of us do anything risky.

The activities you mentioned hurt only the person engaging in them (or don't hurt anyone at all). Activities like exposing others to second hand smoke, driving while intoxicated, or driving at an excessive speed harm others as well. The first two of these are (properly) regulated. Speed is also regulated, it's just a question of where to put the limit. The first two have the limit set by science (and note that the limit for driving after drinking isn't zero, and second hand smoke laws weren't set by popular demand), there isn't a good reason not to do the same for speed.

 

[aluminumwelder]

GRA your anaologies are false and ridiculous, why do you waste your time trying to convince others to do unsafe things. I've got a couple of kids and choose a life style that has me driving about 50% less than the average Joe. The major highways where I live in Charlotte, NC are all 55mph speed limit around the city. Every day I can read a story about someone that died in a car crash going way above the speed limit.

It's their impatience and sense of entitlement that killed them. The laws of physics dont' care.

About once or twice a year do I ever feel the need to go faster than 55 because all the other idiots on the highway feel so intitled to snap pictures of people with their cell phones of people driving the speed limit.

 

[asimba2]

I could care less about the legality--if you're holding people up in the carpool lane, expect to get tailgated and cutoff at the earliest opportunity. Driving 55 mph in the far left lane and holding up cars, is a situation just begging for a road rage incident.

 

[DuncanCunningham]

I moved to the US from England in 2001. When I lived there we were always told, by the media, that America had less road fatalities than we did. The numbers said it all. I thought this would be because of the 'better' US driver.

When I arrived, I was astonished to find that this nation has some of the most aggressive, distracted and down right angry and reckless drivers I've ever seen, though I currently live in Utah, maybe other states are better? Driving in Britain was harder because the ROADS are more dangerous and congested, and yes, some drivers are reckless there too, but most are not. They are quite courteous and, more often then not, willing to let people merge (as long as they are not queue jumping and being rude about it).

Here in the US, the roads are much safer, but the drivers are not, myself included now. I'm pretty sure if I go back to Britain I'd have to relearn how to drive safer, less I become one of those numbers. I have to keep reminding myself that I'm just moving from A to B. A number of times, I've measured how long it takes for me to get home at night. Either being a slow poke, right lane hugging, finding an 'adopter vehicle' to follow and go with the flow compared to just pushing it to the limit and being an ass about getting by people. I've never saved more than 2 mins over the 30 mins commute and you make no new friends that way.

Some of the comments in this post just show how aggressive some of us are and not only this, but are brazen enough to think we are right about being so to others. That kind of attitude, on the British roads, would most certainly end with a death at the wheel. I'd like to die old.

 

[minispeed]

I could care less about the legality--if you're holding people up in the carpool lane, expect to get tailgated and cutoff at the earliest opportunity. Driving 55 mph in the far left lane and holding up cars, is a situation just begging for a road rage incident.

If you're driving 62 mph you can probably expect the same thing, even at 65 mph you can expect it too just a little less often. If I'm going to get that behaviour I'm better off going slow so that when if something goes wrong there's a larger margin of safety.

I drive the speed limit in HOV lanes. Here in Ontario they are similar, double line crossing is a fine, controlled entry exit between each on/off ramp, 1-2 miles and those aren't long enough to yield and get back in. Many times to slow to the speed of the non HOV and then get back in would actually delay people more than just going 55mph consistently. If someone tailgates me I adjust the space up ahead to give over 2 times a safe reactionary gap. The more dangerous they make it by getting close the safer I have to make it by going slow. It's a cause and effect.

I really wish that they would devise an adjustable speed limit in the HOV based on non HOV traffic since speed differentiation combined with people doing unexpected things is probably the most dangerous thing for sober attentive drivers on the highway.

 

[DuncanCunningham]

I really wish that they would devise an adjustable speed limit in the HOV based on non HOV traffic since speed differentiation combined with people doing unexpected things is probably the most dangerous thing for sober attentive drivers on the highway.

What a great idea!

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

Sent this to a Washington State Trooper acquaintance of mine and he basically thought I was foolish for even considering the thought that it was ok to exceed the posted speed limit under any circumstances.

He also looked at what GRA quoted and stated that the phrase was put in to prevent someone from getting a ticket for driving below the posted limits when conditions did not allow such a speed safely and not as GRA had portrayed it to be.

He also stated that anyone driving 55 mph on a freeway where the average speed is 25 mph (in the congested lanes) would never be ticketed for "impeding" the normal flow of traffic. Since the posted limit is 65 mph A 10 mph difference is simply not enough of an impediment and despite what most may think, it is illegal to drive 66 mph on a road where the posted maximum is 65 mph. He stated "feel blessed you are in the HOV lane instead of the normal lanes"

As for why you won't get ticketed? He also says the greatest cause of accidents is the differences in speed and there is one of him and hundreds of us but if you think he will be pulling over the people doing 55 mph over the ones doing 75, he said and I quote... "Better get your wallets out"

 

[Nubo]

I could care less about the legality--if you're holding people up in the carpool lane, expect to get tailgated and cutoff at the earliest opportunity.

By you?

 

[asimba2]

I could care less about the legality--if you're holding people up in the carpool lane, expect to get tailgated and cutoff at the earliest opportunity.

By you?

When cars form behind me, I move over and let them pass. It would be nice if others extended the same courtesy.

 

[GRA]

While we're at it, let's also (re-) ban alcohol, smoking, unsafe sex, falling in love (or out of it), all-you can eat buffets and fried foods, and any number of other activities that kill far more people on a yearly basis than driving cars fast do. Dancing is still considered an instrument of the devil in some parts of the country, so perhaps that one should also be banned. Then there's some literature that the government or some group or individual may not think is appropriate for you or I to read; it might cause us to do something that unnecessarily risks our life, and heaven forbid any of us do anything risky.

The activities you mentioned hurt only the person engaging in them (or don't hurt anyone at all). Activities like exposing others to second hand smoke, driving while intoxicated, or driving at an excessive speed harm others as well. The first two of these are (properly) regulated. Speed is also regulated, it's just a question of where to put the limit. The first two have the limit set by science (and note that the limit for driving after drinking isn't zero, and second hand smoke laws weren't set by popular demand), there isn't a good reason not to do the same for speed.

Good, we agree that laws should be designed to prevent harm to others, not protect people from self-destructive behavior. As to laws being set by science, that certainly plays a part, but ultimately that is usually balanced off by the will of the people. Oh, and laws against second hand smoke, at least around here, most definitely were set by popular demand (backed up by the science), although not all aspects of them were (e.g. banning smoking in all bars, as opposed to allowing bars to choose whether to be smoke-free or not).

 

[GRA]

Sent this to a Washington State Trooper acquaintance of mine and he basically thought I was foolish for even considering the thought that it was ok to exceed the posted speed limit under any circumstances.

He also looked at what GRA quoted and stated that the phrase was put in to prevent someone from getting a ticket for driving below the posted limits when conditions did not allow such a speed safely and not as GRA had portrayed it to be.

He also stated that anyone driving 55 mph on a freeway where the average speed is 25 mph (in the congested lanes) would never be ticketed for "impeding" the normal flow of traffic. Since the posted limit is 65 mph A 10 mph difference is simply not enough of an impediment and despite what most may think, it is illegal to drive 66 mph on a road where the posted maximum is 65 mph. He stated "feel blessed you are in the HOV lane instead of the normal lanes"

As for why you won't get ticketed? He also says the greatest cause of accidents is the differences in speed and there is one of him and hundreds of us but if you think he will be pulling over the people doing 55 mph over the ones doing 75, he said and I quote... "Better get your wallets out"

Had a bit of time to waste this afternoon, so rode my bike over to the law library to do some research. Haven't been there in about 20 years, and everything's been digitized. They've got to have the least user friendly database I've ever used, but I managed to find a few things.

First, the definition of 'overtaking' was stated as follows (in cite to sec. 21753, Yielding to Passing):

"Overtaking", within Veh. Code 1935 sec. 528 [GRA note: and apparently subsequently never changed] requiring motorist to give audible warning before overtaking vehicle proceeding in same direction, meant to come or catch up with in a course of motion, rather than to catch up and pass.

Also in 21753, the construction placed on it stated :

This section, providing that except when overtaking and passing on the right is permitted, the driver of an overtaken vehicle shall give way to the right and shall not increase his speed until completely passed by the overtaking vehicle.

This section is violated when there is either a failure to give way to the right on an audible signal from an overtaking vehicle, or an increase in speed before the overtaking vehicle has completely passed.

It went on to note that someone driving in a middle lane wasn't statutorily required to move over if an overtaking vehicle flashed its lights/made an audible signal, although this was considered courteous, thus definitely establishing that overtaking as defined can take place in the same lane.

As to whether HOV lanes constitute part of the rest of the road or are completely separate, found a cite (didn't copy it, but this is the gist) that a truck was legally entitled to drive in the next lane to the left of the rightmost lane, because there were three normal lanes plus an HOV lane, and the HOV lane was counted with the rest of the lanes to meet the four lanes in one direction criteria to allow a truck to use any but the rightmost lane.

Taken together with the proceeding cite, this would imply that the HOV lane is considered the left-most lane rather than a completely separate piece of road, and thus the requirement to yield to the right when overtaken would apply, when safe to do so (i.e. at the next available exit from the HOV lane).

Finally, impeding traffic in an HOV lane by a private auto has apparently not been adjudicated in California (or at least I couldn't find it), but one case's precedent seemed to imply that they would be considered impeding if it were ever brought to trial. The case involved whether a school bus could use an HOV lane. This went to trial, was appealed and the bus company lost. A member of the state legislature then asked for clarification from the State Attorney General's office (1996; AG Dan Lungren), which replied as follows:

HOV lanes are designated for the maximum speed allowed for the particular area. It would be unreasonable to allow a slow moving vehicle to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic in an HOV lane, where it is prohibited from travelling at the speed limit designated for the HOV lane [GRA note: earlier the AG response stated that school buses are limited by CA. law to a maximum speed of 55 mph; HOV lanes have max. speed limits in California of 65-70 mph]. We are to interpret statutory language in a manner which considers the consequences that would follow from a particular construction . . . but not readily imply an unreasonable legislative purpose . . . We conclude, therefore, that a school bus may not travel in an HOV lane located in a separate corridor in the middle of the freeway, even though entry and exit are from an overpass from the right-hand side of the freeway [GRA note: that was the exception that the bus company was hoping would allow them to use the HOV lane].

That implies to me that someone voluntarily choosing to travel at 55 mph in an HOV lane when the conditions would otherwise allow travel at the speed limit of 65-70 mph, and who has been overtaken, would be "imped(ing) the normal and reasonable movement of traffic in an HOV lane," and would need to speed up (or yield by moving over at the earliest safe opportunity) to allow people to pass. Any other construction would be logically inconsistent with the reasoning as to why a vehicle legally limited to 55 mph can't use the lane. I'm surprised it hasn't gone to court yet.

And I think I've drifted far enough OT to end this here!

 

[Firetruck41]

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, ...

It seems this was quite a few posts ago...

 

[RonDawg]

I moved to the US from England in 2001. When I lived there we were always told, by the media, that America had less road fatalities than we did. The numbers said it all. I thought this would be because of the 'better' US driver.

When I arrived, I was astonished to find that this nation has some of the most aggressive, distracted and down right angry and reckless drivers I've ever seen, though I currently live in Utah, maybe other states are better?

If you think Utah drivers are aggressive, you haven't seen aggressive at all. Come to SoCal, the Bay Area, NYC, Chicago, Greater Washington DC, or Boston. Folks in these areas can show you the true meaning of aggressive driving.

 

[mbender]

If you think Utah drivers are aggressive, you haven't seen aggressive at all. Come to SoCal, the Bay Area, NYC, Chicago, Greater Washington DC, or Boston. Folks in these areas can show you the true meaning of aggressive driving.

Oh how our culture values, encourages and rewards "agressiveness"! Good or bad? Discuss amongst yourselves... ;-)

 

[DuncanCunningham]

If you think Utah drivers are aggressive, you haven't seen aggressive at all. Come to SoCal, the Bay Area, NYC, Chicago, Greater Washington DC, or Boston. Folks in these areas can show you the true meaning of aggressive driving.

Oh how our culture values, encourages and rewards "agressiveness"! Good or bad? Discuss amongst yourselves... ;-)

no way, that is a hiding to nothing.