3 ms·

> The most unanticipated result of this study was the fact that the minimum speed signing generally moved more drivers into the left lanes instead of moving slo

> The most unanticipated result of this study was the fact that the minimum speed signing generally moved more drivers into the left lanes instead of moving slow drivers to the right lane. Fascinating. I wonder why. Perhaps people are generally so confident that they are driving at the right speed, not cluttering the traffic (even when others do think so), they don't consider it a necessity to move over the slower lanes (even when they should). A sign of minimum speed, instead of being a reminder, on the one hand confuses some into thinking it's the maximum speed, and on the other hand, challenges that confidence---surely I'm not so incapable a driver that I can't maintain 60+ mph!

creer 3y ago
This might be the relevant quote: > The police found the minimum speeds to be essentially unenforceable, observing that drivers were passing more on the right, a quarter of all motorists didn't even notice the signs, and 13% of citations issued for minimum speed violations indicated that drivers confused “minimum” for “maximum.” Striking, IMO, that their conclusion was "unenforceable". That might be the main take here: California highway patrol obsesses on some rules and just plain doesn't bother with others. So in practice there is no risk to grabbing a lane - any lane - and acting as if you own it.