4 ms·

> Or there’s another resident who was one of 75 people that were given a ticket for simply using the left lane on the interstate. "Simply using the left lane"

by pc86 5y ago

> Or there’s another resident who was one of 75 people that were given a ticket for simply using the left lane on the interstate. "Simply using the left lane" is illegal unless you're actively passing someone. In my state it's one mile. If you haven't passed someone in the last mile, you need to be in the right lane. I know in some states it's a quarter mile, which at 65-75 seems a bit aggressive (basically saying you have to be going 15-20+ faster than the person you're passing just to safely get over in time). But seriously, hanging out in the left lane is stupid and unsafe, regardless of your speed.

s1mon 5y ago
It really depends on the state laws [0]. It also really depends on the traffic patterns. In places like California where there are 7+ lane wide roads, the left lane is not so special (unless it's a HOV lane). If you've only got two lanes, it's more important to keep the left lane for passing, but when things are bumper to bumper, that doesn't make any sense. [0] https://www.mit.edu/~jfc/right.html https://www.mit.edu/~jfc/right.html
- ars 5y ago
  Seems like it would be the opposite to me: If there are only 2 lanes, you need both for travel. But if you have 7 you can reserve some for speeders. And in all my driving, I've yet to be overtaken legally on the left - they always speed in order to do it, which is illegal. So I'm not clear why "it's more important to keep the left lane for passing". Just make the left lane "speed limit" lane, and the right lane slow lane. Meaning if you are going the speed limit you can stay in the left lane. (This is a hot topic, I'm sure I'll get downvotes, I don't care about that, but I would appreciate replies more. Specifically about what's wrong with staying in the left lane if you are going the maximum legal speed.)
  - dreamcompiler 5y ago
    My friends who are left lane hoggers say this all the time. My response is "show me your badge." Because unless you have one, you're not authorized to enforce speed limits. If you want to call 911 and report the speeder in the left lane, fine. But if you want to drive in the left lane just because you like it over there, you're forcing people to pass you on the right (which is dangerous) and you're disrupting the normal flow of traffic (also dangerous). If you think it should be your job to hog the left lane to slow down speeders, join your local police department. Otherwise move to the right unless you're passing.
    - ars 5y ago
      So then where is your badge? Are you not doing the exact same thing, by making it your job to tell people to move out of the left lane? > pass you on the right (which is dangerous) What's dangerous about it? And don't say "the left lane is for slow cars", because speeders are WAY more dangerous, yet you are not criticizing them. > you're disrupting the normal flow of traffic (also dangerous) I don't see any disruption to the normal flow. Set your cruise control to the speed limit, and just drive smoothly. There is zero reason to constantly weave in and out of traffic as speeding "pass on the left" drivers do. Speeders disrupt the normal flow though, so why are you OK with them? There seems to be large lack of symmetry in your arguments. (Although I do appreciate you at least answering, I've heard these answers before, and yet I never gotten a reply when I bring up the lack of symmetry in the answer.)
      - pc86 5y ago
        Orderly traffic flow (passing on the left, traveling on the right) at speed x is safer than disorderly traffic flow (weaving in and out to avoid the jerk going the limit in the left lane) at speed x-y. > Speeders disrupt the normal flow though When it's one guy going 100 and everyone else is 80, yes. No argument from me. But when everyone is going 80 and there's someone in the left going 65 because that's the limit, the people going 80 aren't the problem.
      - dreamcompiler 5y ago
        I make no attempt to physically enforce "slower traffic keep right." But I often see friends driving the speed limit in the far left lane, and they won't switch lanes when somebody comes up behind them because they are "trying to slow down the speeders." That's the part that needs a badge. Anybody can express an opinion. It's when you physically try to force people to behave differently that you need a badge. By "normal flow" I'm referring to highway conventions that expect the average traffic speed of a leftward lane to be higher than the lane immediately to its right. That's a safer flow than having every lane with a random average speed. Germany enforces this on the Autobahn. Some US states enforce it; most have signs promoting the idea. With "slower traffic keep right" you get something close to laminar flow (with shear) if you treat cars as gas molecules. With "every lane can do whatever it wants" you have turbulent flow, more lane changes, and more collisions.
  - 1123581321 5y ago
    Your internal rules are optimized for optimally set speed limits (85th-90th percentile speed when no speed limit exists, then narrow minimums and maximums strictly enforced.) Most speed limits in the US are set artificially low for the quality of the road. This creates dangerous differences in speed among drivers. Enforcing left lane passing mitigates the risk by keeping passing orderly. Drivers enforcing the maximum speed limit in the left lane prevent orderly passing. On top of the behavioral issue, there are legitimate reasons for non-emergency vehicles to overtake vehicles. I don’t expect you to agree with this, but it is a majority view so preventing it is anti-social (though not as much as blocking driving on the shoulder, which is extreme behavior committed for reasons similar to principled left-lane occupation.) Roads with fewer lanes require more adherence to social customs than wide roads to keep them safe and effective. Most don’t require an elaborate explanation as they can intuitively sense the benefit of staying in the right lane when not passing, as they gain experience with a wider variety of traffic situations.
  - pc86 5y ago
    This is paternalistic nonsense. It's "I'm right, you're wrong, you need to change what you're doing even though I am so far in the minority they're literally making what I'm doing illegal." I distinctly remember a time when I was a passenger with a friend's mother, who was going the speed limit in the left lane. Wide open in front of her, a line of 15+ cars behind her. She actually said "I'm going fast enough, you all can wait." The level of self-importance in such a statement, when it would cost you nothing just to get over and let people be on their way, is absolutely staggering. And for what it's worth, there are several states where there are explicit exceptions to briefly exceed the speed limit for the purposes of passing vehicles in the right lane - some specify they have to be going under the speed limit, but not all.
clairity 5y ago
this is one of the few traffic laws that i wish were enforced vigorously everywhere (turn signals being another). it'd improve the flow of traffic, and to boot, keep people focused on driving rather than their phones.
- nerdponx 5y ago
  I wish "don't pass on the right unless you need to for safety reasons" was a law as well, if it isn't already.
  - pfisherman 5y ago
    I wish “if you are getting passed on the right, speed up or get the hell out of the left lane” were a law. Seriously though, I think it is illegal in California, but as I understand it is something that will get a count added to your ticket, but not something you will necessarily get pulled over for (as opposed to speeding)
  - pc86 5y ago
    I've passed on the right and I've been passed on the right. You can certainly be too aggressive about it, but the vast majority of the time, and I mean 95%+, if you're being passed on the right you're the one in the wrong.
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  I wish these laws were enforced where I live. Every day I deal with ridiculous situations like motorcyclists passing me on the left and right at the same time. If they crash into my car, the justice system will blame me for it because "cars are bigger and the bigger vehicle is responsible for the smaller vehicle". Makes absolutely no sense and it's so demoralizing.
29083011397778 5y ago
it should be illegal, but per TFA, was not at the time. "She argued that she only drove in the left lane to pass other vehicles, and her ticket – on May 26, 2019 – came five months before Alabama’s Anti-Road Rage Act, a law making it illegal to drive in the left lane of an interstate for more than a mile and a half, went into effect." Emphasis my own
- altacc 5y ago
  I find it ironic but unsurprising that something called the Anti-Road Rage Act legislates against lane hoggers. Whilst I find lane hoggers annoying I think the responsibility for road rage is with the raging party, so I'd prefer an act that focused on those committing the road rage, not triggering it. What they've done here is victim blaming and naming a bill based on PR, not policy (also no surprise).
  - leetcrew 5y ago
    the name is absurd, but it's not really victim blaming when the "victim" is actually doing something wrong to begin with. vaguely similar to the concept of "fighting words".
    - altacc 5y ago
      Road rage is never acceptable, regardless of what the other vehicle is doing. Making Lane hogging illegal and calling that anti-road rage seems to accept that road rage is a legitimate response to an action by someone else, which it never is.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    The road rage itself is already illegal. Why shouldn't tempting it by hogging the left lane be illegal too?
    - altacc 5y ago
      Lane hogging is not road rage, which is why the naming is ironic. Road rage itself is never justifiable, regardless of what the other party is doing.
will4274 5y ago
It depends. On a road with two lanes in each direction, yes, definitely, right for going, left for passing. But live in a suburb where the local beltway has 6 lanes in each direction - the left lane is basically just another lane.
- leetcrew 5y ago
  no, it isn't. whenever you have more than one lane per direction on a limited access highway, the left lane is for passing only. it's not for people who find dealing with onramp traffic annoying.

by pc86 5y ago

s1mon 5y ago

It really depends on the state laws [0]. It also really depends on the traffic patterns. In places like California where there are 7+ lane wide roads, the left lane is not so special (unless it's a HOV lane). If you've only got two lanes, it's more important to keep the left lane for passing, but when things are bumper to bumper, that doesn't make any sense. [0] https://www.mit.edu/~jfc/right.html https://www.mit.edu/~jfc/right.html

ars 5y ago
Seems like it would be the opposite to me: If there are only 2 lanes, you need both for travel. But if you have 7 you can reserve some for speeders. And in all my driving, I've yet to be overtaken legally on the left - they always speed in order to do it, which is illegal. So I'm not clear why "it's more important to keep the left lane for passing". Just make the left lane "speed limit" lane, and the right lane slow lane. Meaning if you are going the speed limit you can stay in the left lane. (This is a hot topic, I'm sure I'll get downvotes, I don't care about that, but I would appreciate replies more. Specifically about what's wrong with staying in the left lane if you are going the maximum legal speed.)
- dreamcompiler 5y ago
  My friends who are left lane hoggers say this all the time. My response is "show me your badge." Because unless you have one, you're not authorized to enforce speed limits. If you want to call 911 and report the speeder in the left lane, fine. But if you want to drive in the left lane just because you like it over there, you're forcing people to pass you on the right (which is dangerous) and you're disrupting the normal flow of traffic (also dangerous). If you think it should be your job to hog the left lane to slow down speeders, join your local police department. Otherwise move to the right unless you're passing.
  - ars 5y ago
    So then where is your badge? Are you not doing the exact same thing, by making it your job to tell people to move out of the left lane? > pass you on the right (which is dangerous) What's dangerous about it? And don't say "the left lane is for slow cars", because speeders are WAY more dangerous, yet you are not criticizing them. > you're disrupting the normal flow of traffic (also dangerous) I don't see any disruption to the normal flow. Set your cruise control to the speed limit, and just drive smoothly. There is zero reason to constantly weave in and out of traffic as speeding "pass on the left" drivers do. Speeders disrupt the normal flow though, so why are you OK with them? There seems to be large lack of symmetry in your arguments. (Although I do appreciate you at least answering, I've heard these answers before, and yet I never gotten a reply when I bring up the lack of symmetry in the answer.)
    - pc86 5y ago
      Orderly traffic flow (passing on the left, traveling on the right) at speed x is safer than disorderly traffic flow (weaving in and out to avoid the jerk going the limit in the left lane) at speed x-y. > Speeders disrupt the normal flow though When it's one guy going 100 and everyone else is 80, yes. No argument from me. But when everyone is going 80 and there's someone in the left going 65 because that's the limit, the people going 80 aren't the problem.
    - dreamcompiler 5y ago
      I make no attempt to physically enforce "slower traffic keep right." But I often see friends driving the speed limit in the far left lane, and they won't switch lanes when somebody comes up behind them because they are "trying to slow down the speeders." That's the part that needs a badge. Anybody can express an opinion. It's when you physically try to force people to behave differently that you need a badge. By "normal flow" I'm referring to highway conventions that expect the average traffic speed of a leftward lane to be higher than the lane immediately to its right. That's a safer flow than having every lane with a random average speed. Germany enforces this on the Autobahn. Some US states enforce it; most have signs promoting the idea. With "slower traffic keep right" you get something close to laminar flow (with shear) if you treat cars as gas molecules. With "every lane can do whatever it wants" you have turbulent flow, more lane changes, and more collisions.
- 1123581321 5y ago
  Your internal rules are optimized for optimally set speed limits (85th-90th percentile speed when no speed limit exists, then narrow minimums and maximums strictly enforced.) Most speed limits in the US are set artificially low for the quality of the road. This creates dangerous differences in speed among drivers. Enforcing left lane passing mitigates the risk by keeping passing orderly. Drivers enforcing the maximum speed limit in the left lane prevent orderly passing. On top of the behavioral issue, there are legitimate reasons for non-emergency vehicles to overtake vehicles. I don’t expect you to agree with this, but it is a majority view so preventing it is anti-social (though not as much as blocking driving on the shoulder, which is extreme behavior committed for reasons similar to principled left-lane occupation.) Roads with fewer lanes require more adherence to social customs than wide roads to keep them safe and effective. Most don’t require an elaborate explanation as they can intuitively sense the benefit of staying in the right lane when not passing, as they gain experience with a wider variety of traffic situations.
- pc86 5y ago
  This is paternalistic nonsense. It's "I'm right, you're wrong, you need to change what you're doing even though I am so far in the minority they're literally making what I'm doing illegal." I distinctly remember a time when I was a passenger with a friend's mother, who was going the speed limit in the left lane. Wide open in front of her, a line of 15+ cars behind her. She actually said "I'm going fast enough, you all can wait." The level of self-importance in such a statement, when it would cost you nothing just to get over and let people be on their way, is absolutely staggering. And for what it's worth, there are several states where there are explicit exceptions to briefly exceed the speed limit for the purposes of passing vehicles in the right lane - some specify they have to be going under the speed limit, but not all.

clairity 5y ago

this is one of the few traffic laws that i wish were enforced vigorously everywhere (turn signals being another). it'd improve the flow of traffic, and to boot, keep people focused on driving rather than their phones.

nerdponx 5y ago
I wish "don't pass on the right unless you need to for safety reasons" was a law as well, if it isn't already.
- pfisherman 5y ago
  I wish “if you are getting passed on the right, speed up or get the hell out of the left lane” were a law. Seriously though, I think it is illegal in California, but as I understand it is something that will get a count added to your ticket, but not something you will necessarily get pulled over for (as opposed to speeding)
- pc86 5y ago
  I've passed on the right and I've been passed on the right. You can certainly be too aggressive about it, but the vast majority of the time, and I mean 95%+, if you're being passed on the right you're the one in the wrong.
matheusmoreira 5y ago
I wish these laws were enforced where I live. Every day I deal with ridiculous situations like motorcyclists passing me on the left and right at the same time. If they crash into my car, the justice system will blame me for it because "cars are bigger and the bigger vehicle is responsible for the smaller vehicle". Makes absolutely no sense and it's so demoralizing.

29083011397778 5y ago

it should be illegal, but per TFA, was not at the time. "She argued that she only drove in the left lane to pass other vehicles, and her ticket – on May 26, 2019 – came five months before Alabama’s Anti-Road Rage Act, a law making it illegal to drive in the left lane of an interstate for more than a mile and a half, went into effect." Emphasis my own

altacc 5y ago
I find it ironic but unsurprising that something called the Anti-Road Rage Act legislates against lane hoggers. Whilst I find lane hoggers annoying I think the responsibility for road rage is with the raging party, so I'd prefer an act that focused on those committing the road rage, not triggering it. What they've done here is victim blaming and naming a bill based on PR, not policy (also no surprise).
- leetcrew 5y ago
  the name is absurd, but it's not really victim blaming when the "victim" is actually doing something wrong to begin with. vaguely similar to the concept of "fighting words".
  - altacc 5y ago
    Road rage is never acceptable, regardless of what the other vehicle is doing. Making Lane hogging illegal and calling that anti-road rage seems to accept that road rage is a legitimate response to an action by someone else, which it never is.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  The road rage itself is already illegal. Why shouldn't tempting it by hogging the left lane be illegal too?
  - altacc 5y ago
    Lane hogging is not road rage, which is why the naming is ironic. Road rage itself is never justifiable, regardless of what the other party is doing.

will4274 5y ago

It depends. On a road with two lanes in each direction, yes, definitely, right for going, left for passing. But live in a suburb where the local beltway has 6 lanes in each direction - the left lane is basically just another lane.

leetcrew 5y ago
no, it isn't. whenever you have more than one lane per direction on a limited access highway, the left lane is for passing only. it's not for people who find dealing with onramp traffic annoying.