Stuck behind a Leaf in HOV lane

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
AP1 said:
If you force them to pass on the right, you are putting them and yourself at risk. And I don't believe everything the CHP says. The law says SLOWER traffic keep right, so you are violating the law as much as the speeder.

Sorry, but the CHP is correct. Slower traffic should move to the right IF they aren't in the HOV AND are below the speed limit. There is NO violation if you are doing the speed limit.
 
Sorry, but the CHP is correct. Slower traffic should move to the right IF they aren't in the HOV AND are below the speed limit. There is NO violation if you are doing the speed limit.

Says who? The CHP gods who you like to quote and I'm supposed to take you at your word? Cite court case and venue, please. The part I don't understand is the reluctance to move over and let others get through. It's easy and will make everyone happy. You would still be going at 65mph. I detect a wish to "punish" the nasty law breakers who are running amok and terrorizing the country side. You'll show them... The sad part is that it is unsafe to pass on the right, whether you admit it or not, so you are putting yourself and your family at risk. Let the law take care of the speeders.
 
thankyouOB said:
AP1 said:
If you force them to pass on the right, you are putting them and yourself at risk. And I don't believe everything the CHP says. The law says SLOWER traffic keep right, so you are violating the law as much as the speeder.
wrong wrong wrong.

CHP says speeding at more than 65 in the HOV lane is a speeding violation.
You CANNOT find law that supports what you are saying with regard to the HOV lane.
It does not exist.
Obviously the law says you can't LEGALLY go over 65 no matter what. But the REALITY is if you're driving 65 in the HOV lane you're impeding the flow of traffic and others who want to go fast will attempt the very dangerous pass on the right. Yes they'll be breaking the law (many times) to do this but whether or not it's legal only matters if the cops are watching. Forget about whether or not they have the "right" to go fast and just do what's SAFE and get out of the way.
 
AP1 said:
Sorry, but the CHP is correct. Slower traffic should move to the right IF they aren't in the HOV AND are below the speed limit. There is NO violation if you are doing the speed limit.

Says who?

Says whom? It's the same here as in CA. You may not like it, but it is the law!
I took a traffic school course a few years ago, and everyone except me (85 people) thought it was 'impeding' traffic and illegal when going the speed limit in the 'fast/left' lane (fast lane is NOT the HOV as you seem to believe) with cars behind. So it isn't illegal, but if I were in that lane going the speed limit, I would move over if not passing. However, the HOV is a totally different story. I've had 'blue plates/HOV' for many years and we drivers in the HOV have a right to stay in that lane as long as we go the speed limit. Obviously, when all the other traffic is in rush hour and going very slowly, it is prudent and much safer to slow below the speed limit in the HOV also.
 
AP1 said:
If you force them to pass on the right...

No one is "forcing" anyone to do anything: goodness forbid the person behind might actually choose to obey the law!
Yes, I've been guilty on occasion of going 75+mph in the HOV and sometimes I come across someone ahead of me doing 65mph, so you know what I do? I slow down.
Is it really that unfortunate that those choosing to follow the posted speed limit might actually discourage others around us from driving recklessly?
 
earther said:
Is it really that unfortunate that those choosing to follow the posted speed limit might actually discourage others around us from driving recklessly?
Sounds great except in reality it won't happen. My experience has been if you're going the speed limit in the HOV lane you're basically asking to get tailgated or passed on the right, or at the very least you'll be pissing people off and possibly inducing road rage. I've had people tailgating a few feet behind me and flashing their brights when it was stop and go traffic on the freeway and I couldn't possibly go anywhere close to the speed limit. My only "crime" in the eyes of the person behind me was apparently that I wasn't a tailgater as well.

Cling to the notion that it's your right to go 65 in the HOV lane all you want, but the reality is that 90% of the other drivers out there are dangerous morons and it would seem that when they see a Leaf or Prius or other eco-car in front of them it intensifies their moronitude. My advice is to play it safe and get out of the way if you can, and definitely don't drive in the HOV lane if you're not passing the regular lanes.
 
AP1 said:
Sorry, but the CHP is correct. Slower traffic should move to the right IF they aren't in the HOV AND are below the speed limit. There is NO violation if you are doing the speed limit.

Says who? The CHP gods who you like to quote and I'm supposed to take you at your word?

call them yourself, ask it honestly and listen to the answer.
I have done it twice for this forum in the past six weeks.
I wouldnt make it up. as much as you think folks would rather lie than give you honest reporting, that does not include me.
 
Devin said:
If anyone is interested in understanding traffic patterns and their associated issues I'd highly recommend reading "Traffic: Why We Drive The Way We Do" by Tom Vanderbilt. It's a fairly quick read and it's very easy to understand even if you're not an urban planning nerd like I am. Gives some very interesting insight into alternative concepts about road building and what things really do make a difference. One of the most interesting things I found was the explanation of how the human brain perceives things moving at speed and how our behavior in traffic relates to our caveman brains. Here's a link: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0307277194/wwwjanceedunc-20" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ok, this is quite bizzarre. I read your post yesterday; downloaded the book from iTunes and started listening to it on the way home. Later on JEOPARDY! was playing, and as I'm half-paying attention during the introductions I hear one of the contestants talking about having written a book on the psychology of traffic. Backed up the recording and sure enough, it was Tom Vanderbilt as contestant #3. What are the odds!?

Nice book by the way.
 
From all appearances, in Southern CA, the HOV lane is considered to be a separate roadway. At least that's the theory. If they would actually enforce this little idea I believe they could retire the budget deficit.
 
gbarry42 said:
From all appearances, in Southern CA, the HOV lane is considered to be a separate roadway. At least that's the theory. If they would actually enforce this little idea I believe they could retire the budget deficit.
that is how the CHP officer described it to me.
if there are two HOV lanes, you can move to the one on the right to let folks pass; like on the 110 freeway.
 
There are three things being discussed here, and they need to be kept separate.

One is the law. Then we have courtesy and safety.

I'll start with safety just to get it out of the way. How many times will we hear that there's some huge risk of being rear-ended when driving the speed limit in the fast lane? Of course there are no statistics to support this. None. But we sure keep hearing it, don't we? On the contrary, there is ample evidence that shows slower vehicle speed is almost always safer for everybody. You want everybody safer? Don't bitch at the folks doing the speed limit "impeding" the speeders. Bitch at the speeders. "Feeling" that slower drivers are making everybody less safe is not the same as *actually* making everybody less safe. Why is it that the folks who wish to speed are the most vocal about the dire safety consequences of the people driving at or below the speed limit?

And that brings us to courtesy. If you want everybody to be happy with their driving, and you don't care about safety or conservation of resources, or pollution - then the uncontested action is to always make sure you're not impeding anybody no matter what. Everybody is at least superficially happy if they can travel at whatever speed they wish. And if all else is equal, I suppose a case can be made that a happy driver is safer to be around tha a pissed-off driver.

And finally the law. It never fails to amaze me to hear what people think the driving laws are. They were told something by a police officer. They heard it in traffic school. Somebody they know got a ticket for it. NONE of this determines what's legal. The only thing that does is the vehicle code for the state you're in. There's no mystery. This is a public document that anybody can purchase (and now browse online in most cases). The traffic laws are ALL there. Yes, there is a bit of ambiguity in some edge cases - and those are decided in the courts. But all the stuff being discussed here - there's no gray area. It is all clearly spelled out in the VC's that I've seen. Why bother taking a guess at it? Why bother proving ignorance by claiming knowledge of the law without actually knowing the VC reference? Here's a huge hint for you: No police officer knows the entire VC. None of them. It is a bit like knowing the dictionary. They tend to know their favorite and most often cited sections. But they can't know the entire thing. A mere civilian can know more about the *relevant* section he may be interested in than does the police officer that is citing him. Being given a ticket for something does NOT make that action illegal. It only means that the police officer thinks it is. But he doesn't get to make that call. The court does. The police officer only gets to ruin your day and force you to show up and prove that he has misinterpreted the law.

If you want to test this theory re. how much of the VC that a given officer knows, just try asking one about legal bicycle operation on a public road. That one is usually good for a laugh. I carry the relevant VC section on my bicycle with me because I have yet to meet an officer that knows it. They all THINK they know it. And every one has it wrong so far.

But I don't mean to digress. We're talking about the freedom to speed in a car. The *right* to speed in a car. And I can't wait for somebody (anybody!) to show me a VC reference that shows driving at anything under the posted *maximum* speed limit is illegal for the sole reason that they aren't driving AT the posted *maximum* speed limit. From some of these comments, you'd think that the only way to legally drive a car on a public road is to always drive at EXACTLY the posted speed limit. I mean it is obvious that you shouldn't exceed that... but apparently some folks feel you also should never drive below it. Man, that's a hard needle to thread at all times!

And then there are those who (seriously) contend that the posted limit is a minimum!
 
darelldd said:
There are three things being discussed here, and they need to be kept separate.

One is the law. Then we have courtesy and safety.

I'll start with safetey just to get it out of the way. How many times will we hear that there's some huge risk of being rear-ended when driving the speed limit in the fast lane? Of course there are no statistics to support this. None. But we sure keep hearing it, don't we? On the contrary, there is ample evidence that shows slower vehicle speed is almost always safer for everybody. You want everybody safer? Don't bitch at the folks doing the speed limit "impeding" the speeders. Bitch at the speeders. "Feeling" that slower drivers are making everybody less safe is not the same as *actually* making everybody less safe. Why is it that the folks who wish to speed are the most vocal about the dire safety consequences of the people driving at or below the speed limit?

And that brings us to courtesy. If you want everybody to be happy with their driving, and you don't care about safety or conservation of resources, or pollution - then the uncontested action is to always make sure you're not impeding anybody no matter what. Everybody is at least superficially happy if they can travel at whatever speed they wish. And if all else is equal, I suppose a case can be made that a happy driver is safer to be around that a pissed-off driver.

And finally the law. It never fails to amaze me to hear what people think the driving laws are. They were told something by a police officer. They heard it in traffic school. Somebody they know got a ticket for it. NONE of this determines what's legal. The only thing that does is the vehicle code for the state you're in. There's no mystery. This is a public document that anybody can purchase (and now browse online in most cases). The traffic laws are ALL there. Yes, there is a bit of ambiguity in some edge cases - and those are decided in the courts. But all the stuff being discussed here - there's no gray area. It is all clearly spelled out in the VC's that I've seen. Why bother taking a guess at it? Why bother proving ignorance by claiming knowledge of the law without actually knowing the VC reference? Here's a huge hint for you: No police officer knows the entire VC. None of them. It is a bit like knowing the dictionary. They tend to know their favorite and most often cited sections. But they can't know the entire thing. A mere civilian can know more about the *relevant* section you may be interested in, than the police officer that is citing you. Being given a ticket for something does NOT make that action illegal. It only means that the police officer thinks it is. But he doesn't get to make that call. The court does. The police officer only gets to ruin your day and force you to show up and understand the law.

If you want to test this theory re. how much of the VC that a given officer knows, just try asking one about legal bicycle operation on a public road. That one is usually good for a laugh. I carry the relevant VC section on my bicycle with me because I have yet to meet an officer that knows it. They all THINK they know it. And every one has it wrong so far.

But I don't mean to digress. We're talking about the freedom to speed in a car. The *right* to speed in a car. And I can't wait for somebody (anybody!) to show me a VC reference that shows driving at anything under the posted *maximum* speed limit is illegal for the sole reason that they aren't driving AT the posted *maximum* speed limit. From some of these comments, you'd think that the only way to legally drive a car on a public road is to always drive at EXACTLY the posted speed limit. I mean it is obvious that you shouldn't exceed that... but apparently some folks feel you also should never drive below it. Man, that's a hard needle to thread at all times!

And then there are those who (seriously) contend that the posted limit is a minimum!

Great post! +1
 
darelldd said:
But I don't mean to digress. We're talking about the freedom to speed in a car. The *right* to speed in a car. And I can't wait for somebody (anybody!) to show me a VC reference that shows driving at anything under the posted *maximum* speed limit is illegal for the sole reason that they aren't driving AT the posted *maximum* speed limit. From some of these comments, you'd think that the only way to legally drive a car on a public road is to always drive at EXACTLY the posted speed limit. I mean it is obvious that you shouldn't exceed that... but apparently some folks feel you also should never drive below it. Man, that's a hard needle to thread at all times!

And then there are those who (seriously) contend that the posted limit is a minimum!
In PriusChat - there were actually people saying anyone who drives *below* the max limit should be ticketed.

I'm reminded of an article I had read on how speed is the new drug a long time back (in school).

I think CA budget woes can be solved by ticketing everyone breaking the law on the freeways by going over the speed limit ;)
 
Thanks guys. I can only take it for so long. ;) I'll need to get my thanks in before somebody (and you know it'll happen) takes me to task for some part of what I just wrote.

@Evnow - yes, that same PriusChat thread is what inspired the comments you quoted. There really are people who think that the posted speed limit is the *minimum* speed at which anybody should travel. Good lord.
 
darelldd said:
Thanks guys. I can only take it for so long. ;) I'll need to get my thanks in before somebody (and you know it'll happen) takes me to task for some part of what I just wrote.

@Evnow - yes, that same PriusChat thread is what inspired the comments you quoted. There really are people who think that the posted speed limit is the *minimum* speed at which anybody should travel. Good lord.

way to go man.
gotchyer back.
bytheway, a search of the CA vehicle code shows nothing in the HOV section with regard to the issue of speed or keeping to the right.
 
Thinking of George Carlin tonight :)

"Why is it that everyone driving faster than you is an idiot and everyone driving slower than you is a moron?"
 
TNleaf said:
If you want to test this theory re. how much of the VC that a given officer knows, just try asking one about legal bicycle operation on a public road. That one is usually good for a laugh. I carry the relevant VC section on my bicycle with me because I have yet to meet an officer that knows it. They all THINK they know it. And every one has it wrong so far.

I'm not a bicyclist, but I'm curious -- are they totally immune to stop signs, stop lights, and so on? I see every bicyclist in San Diego blowing through intersections like they have Diplomatic Immunity. Is there a special VC carveout for this?
 
GroundLoop said:
TNleaf said:
If you want to test this theory re. how much of the VC that a given officer knows, just try asking one about legal bicycle operation on a public road. That one is usually good for a laugh. I carry the relevant VC section on my bicycle with me because I have yet to meet an officer that knows it. They all THINK they know it. And every one has it wrong so far.

I'm not a bicyclist, but I'm curious -- are they totally immune to stop signs, stop lights, and so on? I see every bicyclist in San Diego blowing through intersections like they have Diplomatic Immunity. Is there a special VC carveout for this?
No. And as a bicycle commuter since 1978 (starting in San Diego, as it happens) I stop at every stop sign and stop light. And bicyclists who don't piss me off because they get car drivers irritated at bicycles in general. (That's less of a problem where I live now because pretty much everyone who passes me knows who I am in this tiny, rural county, and they tend to be polite and courteous.)

I can't speak for current California law (that's darelldd's turf), but in Colorado bicycles riding on roadways are subject to nearly all the traffic restrictions that motor vehicles are. Including stopping at stop signs and lights. So I do.
 
Back
Top