3 ms·

> The "stay right" rule is about not obstructing the flow of traffic I agree, but the crux is whether one is prohibited from obstructing just the legal flow o

by nkurz 10y ago

> The "stay right" rule is about not obstructing the flow of traffic I agree, but the crux is whether one is prohibited from obstructing just the legal flow of traffic, or from obstructing any flow of traffic. Different states define this differently. Indiana, for example, recently reworded their law to require you to allow any one to pass you even if they would be breaking the law to do so: http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/new-indiana-law-move-over-slowpokes/article_154ca710-a423-583b-b7dc-00388ac0cabb.html http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/new-ind.... While this doesn't make speeding legal, it strongly implies that drivers who wish to illegally exceed the speed limit in Indiana have a right to do so.

mulmen 10y ago
I disagree that the Indiana law implies a right to speed, it just says that traffic should not be impeded. If you are going 65mph in a 65mph zone on a two lane road and someone comes up behind you at 80mph and you move over to pass as required by that law it's still entirely possible that they will be pulled over after they pass you. The law is about reducing the hazards on the road. Impeding traffic flow is extremely dangerous, more so than most people seem to realize [2]. These laws also apply in cases where the passed vehicle is traveling below the speed limit. The "stay right" rule is about not obstructing traffic because doing so is very dangerous. If that traffic is speeding then yes, they are also technically in the wrong but it is important to also stay right and not create an even more hazardous situation. This also means the "cruise control pass" where one car slowly overtakes another is also illegal if it is delaying anyone else from passing. Washington State has a similar law [1] as does Idaho I believe. [1]: http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.427 http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.427 [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oqfodY2Lz0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oqfodY2Lz0
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- nitrogen 10y ago
  Responding to a comment that was deleted while I typed (sorry for any misformatting; copy/paste/edit is kind of difficult in the microscopic text box on a phone): Retric 6 minutes ago | parent | flag | favorite | on: DeepTraffic is a gamified simulation of typical hi... It's much safer for a few semi's to block all lanes while going the speed limit than to let people pass at 80+MPH. So, moving to the right lane has little to do with safety just enabling speeding. In heavy traffic police will sometimes do this at below highway speeds which can create a huge net benefit. Further, lane changes are dangerous and should be minimized. It's hardly safe if the natural speed of traffic behind the semis is x+5 and the semis are going x. Then you have a constantly growing number of cars trying to fit in the same amount of space, and density seems way more dangerous than speed. I don't understand why some drivers feel the need to control every other driver behind them. As other commenters have said, it is more dangerous (and less efficient) to create a backup than to just let faster traffic pass, regardless of the numbers printed on the signs. It is not your job as a driver to police other drivers. Maybe your bald all seasons on your cheap sedan can only go 55 in a 70 in the rain, but that other car has rain tires and traction control that could handle 110, so they are safe at 70 in a 70. Preventing them from passing is unsafe and deeply impolite.
  - mulmen 10y ago
    I really believe we should have mandatory driver testing on a regular basis. Say every 5 years for a skill test and a written test every year. Written test could be through the mail and it could be funded by increased penalties on speeding and impeding traffic flow. I got my drivers license in Idaho then moved to Seattle years later. Washington took one look at my Idaho license and handed me a Washington license. There were no questions asked about traffic laws or anything. This city has grown substantially in the last 10 years and it's starting to show in the traffic. We have big backups but we aren't at capacity, drivers are just very inefficient in their habits. Last year there was a push from the DOT to encourage zipper merging to more efficiently use our roads. I try to follow that advice but drivers aggressively prevent the merge at the merge point, probably because it seems to them like I am "cutting" in line. I think we could make big improvements just with some education. Self-driving cars will help but making people better (even a little bit) will help. And if human drivers follow the rules more reliably that has to make the self-driving car's job easier during the long transition from all human to all AI controlled.
- nkurz 10y ago
  > Impeding traffic flow is extremely dangerous, more so than most people seem to realize Sure, if we accept the current reality that many drivers drive faster than the law allows, it likely improves overall public safety to allow them to do so unimpeded. My preference would be that we either enforce the existing laws, or change the laws to match the norm. But although there are many situations where the chance of immediate harm would be reduced by avoiding confrontation, I think it's rare that citizens are legally required to accommodate law breakers. For example, while it may reduce the risk of bodily injury to peacefully turn your keys over to a carjacker, it's unlikely that we would criminalize refusal. I presume this is because society tolerates (accepts, condones) speeding in a way that it does not tolerate carjacking. At the least, I think it implies that laws are divided into (at least) two classes, laws that individuals must allow others to break, and those that they are allowed (or encouraged) to attempt enforcement. Can you give other examples of illegal activities where third parties are required to take positive action to allow? And where there isn't widely considered to be a "right" to break that law? I'm sure they exist, but I'm not coming up with them.
  - mulmen 10y ago
    Impeding the flow of traffic is dangerous regardless of the presence of speeders, it is also against the rules. If you aren't following the "stay right" rule then you are as wrong as a speeder. You can't pick and choose what rules you want to obey. > At the least, I think it implies that laws are divided into (at least) two classes, laws that individuals must allow others to break, and those that they are allowed (or encouraged) to attempt enforcement. Maybe I misunderstand what you mean but I'm not aware of any situation where private citizens are encouraged to enforce the law. That's a recipe for disaster and is where road rage is born. Should I drive around and tailgate everyone in the left lane to teach them to drive on the right? What's the difference? e: The "drive right" rule is not about allowing speeders, it is about not impeding the flow of traffic. It's similar to "yield to the right", the rules of the road are designed to allow all of us to use a shared resource efficiently.
    - nkurz 10y ago
      It's likely that we agree on real-world practice: one should allow vehicles to safely pass regardless of the legality of their speed, and harassing someone who is driving in the wrong lane is to be avoided. I drive as politely as I can, both for my own safety and that of others. That said, I am philosophically troubled by a law that legally requires me to take a positive action that benefits those who choose to ignore the law. I'm not sure what the parallel would be to your "yield to the right" example --- perhaps requiring that the driver with the legal right of way check first that no one has chosen to ignore the yield sign? I would be interested in better parallel examples where positive action is mandated to improve public safety in the event that another party is breaking the law. My guess is that degree of comfort with similar laws show a strong urban/rural split, based on the degree to which "leave the policing to the police" is feasible. (note that I'm not questioning the general principal of "slow traffic keep right", only the corner case where all traffic is already moving at the legal speed limit)
ThrustVectoring 10y ago
>the crux is whether one is prohibited from obstructing just the legal flow of traffic, or from obstructing any flow of traffic. Pretty much all the laws don't say "but if you're driving the speed limit, you can stay in the left lane". It's all more like "keep right except to pass slower traffic". It's pretty clear. >While this doesn't make speeding legal, it strongly implies that drivers who wish to illegally exceed the speed limit in Indiana have a right to do so. No, it doesn't. It says that both speeding and blocking speeders by loitering in the passing lane are both traffic violations. If you want to drive legally, stay under the speed limit and out of the left-most lane (except when necessary to do so for exiting, passing, making way for emergency vehicles, etc). It's not that complicated.
- mulmen 10y ago
  > It's all more like "keep left except to pass slower traffic". It's pretty clear. Forgive me if you are in a left driving country but since this is a conversation about US State traffic laws I think you meant keep right except to pass.
  - ThrustVectoring 10y ago
    yeah, thanks, I accidentally edited the phrasing from something like "don't go in the left lane" to "keep left".

by nkurz 10y ago

mulmen 10y ago

I disagree that the Indiana law implies a right to speed, it just says that traffic should not be impeded. If you are going 65mph in a 65mph zone on a two lane road and someone comes up behind you at 80mph and you move over to pass as required by that law it's still entirely possible that they will be pulled over after they pass you. The law is about reducing the hazards on the road. Impeding traffic flow is extremely dangerous, more so than most people seem to realize [2]. These laws also apply in cases where the passed vehicle is traveling below the speed limit. The "stay right" rule is about not obstructing traffic because doing so is very dangerous. If that traffic is speeding then yes, they are also technically in the wrong but it is important to also stay right and not create an even more hazardous situation. This also means the "cruise control pass" where one car slowly overtakes another is also illegal if it is delaying anyone else from passing. Washington State has a similar law [1] as does Idaho I believe. [1]: http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.427 http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.427 [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oqfodY2Lz0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oqfodY2Lz0

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
nitrogen 10y ago
Responding to a comment that was deleted while I typed (sorry for any misformatting; copy/paste/edit is kind of difficult in the microscopic text box on a phone): Retric 6 minutes ago | parent | flag | favorite | on: DeepTraffic is a gamified simulation of typical hi... It's much safer for a few semi's to block all lanes while going the speed limit than to let people pass at 80+MPH. So, moving to the right lane has little to do with safety just enabling speeding. In heavy traffic police will sometimes do this at below highway speeds which can create a huge net benefit. Further, lane changes are dangerous and should be minimized. It's hardly safe if the natural speed of traffic behind the semis is x+5 and the semis are going x. Then you have a constantly growing number of cars trying to fit in the same amount of space, and density seems way more dangerous than speed. I don't understand why some drivers feel the need to control every other driver behind them. As other commenters have said, it is more dangerous (and less efficient) to create a backup than to just let faster traffic pass, regardless of the numbers printed on the signs. It is not your job as a driver to police other drivers. Maybe your bald all seasons on your cheap sedan can only go 55 in a 70 in the rain, but that other car has rain tires and traction control that could handle 110, so they are safe at 70 in a 70. Preventing them from passing is unsafe and deeply impolite.
- mulmen 10y ago
  I really believe we should have mandatory driver testing on a regular basis. Say every 5 years for a skill test and a written test every year. Written test could be through the mail and it could be funded by increased penalties on speeding and impeding traffic flow. I got my drivers license in Idaho then moved to Seattle years later. Washington took one look at my Idaho license and handed me a Washington license. There were no questions asked about traffic laws or anything. This city has grown substantially in the last 10 years and it's starting to show in the traffic. We have big backups but we aren't at capacity, drivers are just very inefficient in their habits. Last year there was a push from the DOT to encourage zipper merging to more efficiently use our roads. I try to follow that advice but drivers aggressively prevent the merge at the merge point, probably because it seems to them like I am "cutting" in line. I think we could make big improvements just with some education. Self-driving cars will help but making people better (even a little bit) will help. And if human drivers follow the rules more reliably that has to make the self-driving car's job easier during the long transition from all human to all AI controlled.
nkurz 10y ago
> Impeding traffic flow is extremely dangerous, more so than most people seem to realize Sure, if we accept the current reality that many drivers drive faster than the law allows, it likely improves overall public safety to allow them to do so unimpeded. My preference would be that we either enforce the existing laws, or change the laws to match the norm. But although there are many situations where the chance of immediate harm would be reduced by avoiding confrontation, I think it's rare that citizens are legally required to accommodate law breakers. For example, while it may reduce the risk of bodily injury to peacefully turn your keys over to a carjacker, it's unlikely that we would criminalize refusal. I presume this is because society tolerates (accepts, condones) speeding in a way that it does not tolerate carjacking. At the least, I think it implies that laws are divided into (at least) two classes, laws that individuals must allow others to break, and those that they are allowed (or encouraged) to attempt enforcement. Can you give other examples of illegal activities where third parties are required to take positive action to allow? And where there isn't widely considered to be a "right" to break that law? I'm sure they exist, but I'm not coming up with them.
- mulmen 10y ago
  Impeding the flow of traffic is dangerous regardless of the presence of speeders, it is also against the rules. If you aren't following the "stay right" rule then you are as wrong as a speeder. You can't pick and choose what rules you want to obey. > At the least, I think it implies that laws are divided into (at least) two classes, laws that individuals must allow others to break, and those that they are allowed (or encouraged) to attempt enforcement. Maybe I misunderstand what you mean but I'm not aware of any situation where private citizens are encouraged to enforce the law. That's a recipe for disaster and is where road rage is born. Should I drive around and tailgate everyone in the left lane to teach them to drive on the right? What's the difference? e: The "drive right" rule is not about allowing speeders, it is about not impeding the flow of traffic. It's similar to "yield to the right", the rules of the road are designed to allow all of us to use a shared resource efficiently.
  - nkurz 10y ago
    It's likely that we agree on real-world practice: one should allow vehicles to safely pass regardless of the legality of their speed, and harassing someone who is driving in the wrong lane is to be avoided. I drive as politely as I can, both for my own safety and that of others. That said, I am philosophically troubled by a law that legally requires me to take a positive action that benefits those who choose to ignore the law. I'm not sure what the parallel would be to your "yield to the right" example --- perhaps requiring that the driver with the legal right of way check first that no one has chosen to ignore the yield sign? I would be interested in better parallel examples where positive action is mandated to improve public safety in the event that another party is breaking the law. My guess is that degree of comfort with similar laws show a strong urban/rural split, based on the degree to which "leave the policing to the police" is feasible. (note that I'm not questioning the general principal of "slow traffic keep right", only the corner case where all traffic is already moving at the legal speed limit)

ThrustVectoring 10y ago

>the crux is whether one is prohibited from obstructing just the legal flow of traffic, or from obstructing any flow of traffic. Pretty much all the laws don't say "but if you're driving the speed limit, you can stay in the left lane". It's all more like "keep right except to pass slower traffic". It's pretty clear. >While this doesn't make speeding legal, it strongly implies that drivers who wish to illegally exceed the speed limit in Indiana have a right to do so. No, it doesn't. It says that both speeding and blocking speeders by loitering in the passing lane are both traffic violations. If you want to drive legally, stay under the speed limit and out of the left-most lane (except when necessary to do so for exiting, passing, making way for emergency vehicles, etc). It's not that complicated.

mulmen 10y ago
> It's all more like "keep left except to pass slower traffic". It's pretty clear. Forgive me if you are in a left driving country but since this is a conversation about US State traffic laws I think you meant keep right except to pass.
- ThrustVectoring 10y ago
  yeah, thanks, I accidentally edited the phrasing from something like "don't go in the left lane" to "keep left".