Broadway Extension: Our Autobahn.

[GoGators]

No one is trying to demonize people observing the law while justifying those breaking the law. If you really want to get technical about the law, driving in the left lane except when passing is breaking the law, but clearly that's hard to always enforce, especially on a freeway like the one we're discussing.

Left-lane driving ban now the law



That's why the signs say "Slower Traffic Keep Right" with no reference to the speed limit.

But, regardless of the law, allowing faster traffic to pass on the left is the safest option, which is what should guide driving decisions. Those who make driving decisions based on contempt for other drivers are just putting everyone, including themselves, at greater risk.

If I'm driving in the left lane and passing people on the right and I happen to be blocking someone behind me who wants to be going 90 it's not out of contempt or me wanting to "teach anyone a lesson". I couldn't care less what that person does and I haven't thought about them at all. Maybe the reason why road rage is so bad is people taking every other driver's actions as a personal attack.

[BDP]

If I'm driving in the left lane and passing people on the right and I happen to be blocking someone behind me who wants to be going 90 it's not out of contempt or me wanting to "teach anyone a lesson". I couldn't care less what that person does and I haven't thought about them at all. Maybe the reason why road rage is so bad is people taking every other driver's actions as a personal attack.

Right. And if you can safely change lanes to allow the 90 mph driver to go, you obviously do. That's why it's illegal to stay in the left lane when not actively passing. It's not personal, it's just safe driving.

[Bill Robertson]

Correct. Because it is not based on accommodation. It's based on safety. Forcing the 90 mph jackass to make more lane changes puts those thousands of other cars on that stretch of highway at greater risk than just simply letting him pass on the left. The laws exist to protect everyone else from the jackass.

But there isn't room or time for everyone to move over for said jackass. The fault lies on the jackass. There is no defense for one person out of a thousand putting the thousand at risk.,

[Jersey Boss]

But there isn't room or time for everyone to move over for said jackass. The fault lies on the jackass. There is no defense for one person out of a thousand putting the thousand at risk.,

You could not have said it better. You sir are spot on.

[GoGators]

Correct. Because it is not based on accommodation. It's based on safety. Forcing the 90 mph jackass to make more lane changes puts those thousands of other cars on that stretch of highway at greater risk than just simply letting him pass on the left. The laws exist to protect everyone else from the jackass.

No one is' "forcing" the person wanting to drive 90 mph to do anything. If he wants to drive recklessly and put lives in danger that is on them and them alone.

[BDP]

But there isn't room or time for everyone to move over for said jackass. The fault lies on the jackass. There is no defense for one person out of a thousand putting the thousand at risk.,

I don't think anyone is defending the jackass. Everyone hates that person. And, of course, there's no way for everyone to get over at the same time. That's not what the law is instructing. Logically, this happens in succession.

As for fault, two things can be true at the same time, especially as far as the law is concerned. Especially when both cars are speeding. It is entirely possible to be cited for speeding and impeding traffic. If someone is going 70 in a 60 in the left lane while not passing, they're technically committing two violations.

I'm just saying what is safer and what the law says according the state trooper in the article above, which is: left-lane driving is illegal even if a motorist approaches from behind while exceeding the speed limit. And that's simply because it's safer to let them pass on the left. This is regardless of how fast either car is going relative to the speed limit.

Obviously, we could parse specific scenarios ad nauseam, but the law says what it says and just because someone is passing someone else in the left lane it does not establish them as the pace car for the left lane until further notice. Yes, the speeding jackass is endangering other drivers, but impeding them is compounding that risk and letting them use the left lane to pass is mitigating it.

[Bill Robertson]

I don't think anyone is defending the jackass. Everyone hates that person. And, of course, there's no way for everyone to get over at the same time. That's not what the law is instructing. Logically, this happens in succession.

As for fault, two things can be true at the same time, especially as far as the law is concerned. Especially when both cars are speeding. It is entirely possible to be cited for speeding and impeding traffic. If someone is going 70 in a 60 in the left lane while not passing, they're technically committing two violations.

I'm just saying what is safer and what the law says according the state trooper in the article above, which is: left-lane driving is illegal even if a motorist approaches from behind while exceeding the speed limit. And that's simply because it's safer to let them pass on the left. This is regardless of how fast either car is going relative to the speed limit.

Obviously, we could parse specific scenarios ad nauseam, but the law says what it says and just because someone is passing someone else in the left lane it does not establish them as the pace car for the left lane until further notice. Yes, the speeding jack ass is endangering other drivers, but impeding them is compounding that risk and letting them use the left lane to pass is mitigating it.

With all due respect your posts really seem to try to justify the jackasses and put the blame on everyone else.

[BDP]

No one is' "forcing" the person wanting to drive 90 mph to do anything. If he wants to drive recklessly and put lives in danger that is on them and them alone.

Wow. Okay.

I guess it just boils down to "if someone else is breaking the law and driving reckless, I can, too."

[Bill Robertson]

Wow. Okay.

I guess it just boils down to "if someone else is breaking the law and driving reckless, I can, too."

Actually GoGators is exactly right.

[BDP]

With all due respect your posts really seem to try to justify the jackasses and put the blame on everyone else.

With equal respect, do you think the state Trooper's statement does the same? If not, how is his comment on the left lane driving law different than what I've posted on the topic?

Honestly, my position is based on the safety of everyone else. If someone is driving erratically, i.e. 30+ over the speed limit, wouldn't the best advice be to GTF out of their way? I don't see how impeding them improves the situation. Maybe that's what I'm missing: how does actively impeding a speeding car make the road safer for everyone else? In other words: why does the law regarding left lane driving make us less safe and do you advocate changing it and to what?

[BDP]

Actually GoGators is exactly right.

How so? He's advocating putting everyone at more risk for the jackass's actions.

[Bill Robertson]

With equal respect, do you think the state Trooper's statement does the same? If not, how is his comment on the left lane driving law different than what I've posted on the topic?

Honestly, my position is based on the safety of everyone else. If someone is driving erratically, i.e. 30+ over the speed limit, wouldn't the best advice be to GTF out of their way? I don't see how impeding them improves the situation. Maybe that's what I'm missing: how does actively impeding a speeding car make the road safer for everyone else? In other words: why does the law regarding left lane driving make us less safe and do you advocate changing it and to what?

You are COMPLETELY missing my point that there isn't time or space for lots of drivers to get out of the way of the jackass. The jackass is the problem not everyone else.

[BDP]

You are COMPLETELY missing my point that there isn't time or space for lots of drivers to get out of the way of the jackass. The jackass is the problem not everyone else.

We're clearly focusing on different aspects of this. I know the jackass started the problem and I guess I haven't reinforced that point to a satisfactory degree.

I'm just focusing on what people should do in response to the jackass to make the road safer for everyone else. "Everyone else" is dealing with the jackass, and the law simply gives instructions on what everyone else should do when the jackass inevitably shows up that will help mitigate the risk presented by the jackass.

But this is going in weird circles. The jackass clearly is not deterred by the concept that whatever danger he is presenting is "on him". I don't think not letting him pass on the left is going to change that. But maybe I, and the law, are wrong about that and that who's at fault is more important than helping to mitigate the risk of a pile up.

[GoGators]

How so? He's advocating putting everyone at more risk for the jackass's actions.

I’m not advocating for anything. I’m simply stating if I am in the left lane overtaking cars and someone comes up behind me they are going to be waiting until I finish passing. If I weren’t actively passing cars I wouldn’t be in the left lane. I don’t care what speed the driver behind me wishes to go.

[April in the Plaza]

I’m not advocating for anything. I’m simply stating if I am in the left lane overtaking cars and someone comes up behind me they are going to be waiting until I finish passing. If I weren’t actively passing cars I wouldn’t be in the left lane. I don’t care what speed the driver behind me wishes to go.

Beautifully said. And you shouldn’t be expected to drive 90+ to complete your pass. Just make it commercially reasonable.

[BDP]

IÂ’m not advocating for anything. IÂ’m simply stating if I am in the left lane overtaking cars and someone comes up behind me they are going to be waiting until I finish passing. If I werenÂ’t actively passing cars I wouldnÂ’t be in the left lane. I donÂ’t care what speed the driver behind me wishes to go.

Than I don't know how what we're saying is any different. Obviously, if you're passing someone you can't change lanes into them to let a 90+ mph speeder pass. No one said you need to go faster.

[bombermwc]

that is not the way the law is written or the intent of the law ..

Exactly. Again, it's not your job to sit in the left lane and dictate what others should be doing because you've decided the limit is the limit or 5/10/15/whatever over, is the limit. Your job, is to move out of the way. Otherwise, you're the problem and the cause of the road rage. That IS the intent of the law. The sign does not say move over only it they're going the speed limit. It says get the F out of the way.

Sort of like bicycle riders. They may have the road rules in their favor, but it won't help them if they're dead. You have to use common sense when driving. And common courtesy. Just move over. It's not a race to win. You can move back after they pass.

[gjl]

If you wonder why our traffic is the way it is, reading through this thread should clear that up for you.

[Rover]

Exactly. Again, it's not your job to sit in the left lane and dictate what others should be doing because you've decided the limit is the limit or 5/10/15/whatever over, is the limit. Your job, is to move out of the way. Otherwise, you're the problem and the cause of the road rage. That IS the intent of the law. The sign does not say move over only it they're going the speed limit. It says get the F out of the way.

Sort of like bicycle riders. They may have the road rules in their favor, but it won't help them if they're dead. You have to use common sense when driving. And common courtesy. Just move over. It's not a race to win. You can move back after they pass.

WOW. This gives us some insight into the highway bully mentality.

BTW, the intent of the law isn't to curb road rage. That's absurd to blame the victim. It is to prevent accidents caused by people who are driving the speed limit and having to break the law and pass others on the right, instead of being able to in the left. It has nothing to do with abetting law breakers who might throw a tantrum and bully others because they want their right to speed and cause other safety hazards.

And, your analogy with bike riding..... it is more like the bike riders ignoring the traffic laws and deciding on their own to go wherever, whenever, and however they want, regardless of the basic law. Then they get angry when almost getting hit while disobeying.

[GoGators]

Exactly. Again, it's not your job to sit in the left lane and dictate what others should be doing because you've decided the limit is the limit or 5/10/15/whatever over, is the limit. Your job, is to move out of the way. Otherwise, you're the problem and the cause of the road rage. That IS the intent of the law. The sign does not say move over only it they're going the speed limit. It says get the F out of the way.

Sort of like bicycle riders. They may have the road rules in their favor, but it won't help them if they're dead. You have to use common sense when driving. And common courtesy. Just move over. It's not a race to win. You can move back after they pass.

The only person responsible for road rage is the person raging. Blaming a grown adult throwing a tantrum on someone else is the reason why so many adults feel justified acting like toddlers. Common sense would be knowing that you wont be able to drive 90 mph everywhere you want without anyone ever being in front of you. Common courtesy would be not putting everyone's life in danger because you feel entitled or inconvenienced for 2 min while a car going slower than you passes others going slower than them. As you said there is no race to win.

[MagzOK]

Regardless of who is responsible, people can end up dead because an idiot is driving 100MPH tailgating and the one being tailgated brake checks then the tailgater pounds into the tailgated pushing them over taking out two or three other vehicles. Both the tailgater AND the tailgated are catalysts of the reaction and the one who takes the higher road could be the one who saves everyone -- by just merging over after they've passed whomever on their right. But the problem is you've got the 100MPH missile coming up behind and if you can, just get out of the way so everyone goes home. It's more than just "sticking it" to the speeder or the one weaving in and out of traffic. They obviously have a real problem if they're driving that wreckless and won't care if they take you or anyone else out. Take the high road, be better, and just move over. It's just not worth it. I promise you aren't the only one cussing at said reckless driver but don't be another catalyst with them resulting in putting everyone else in danger.

[Midtowner]

Who is driving at 100MPH on I-235? Virtually no one. The passing lane is for passing. It doesn't matter whether you are going 100MPH or the speed limit, sitting in the passing lane, not actively passing someone is not what it's for. I'm not sure what is controversial here.

[Just the facts]

This law doesn't even apply to urban interstates so not sure what everyone is arguing about.

Now for rural interstates...

[Bill Robertson]

This law doesn't even apply to urban interstates so not sure what everyone is arguing about.

Now for rural interstates...

Not really. This is from the statute.

A vehicle shall not be driven in the left lane of a roadway except when overtaking and passing another vehicle; provided, however, this paragraph shall not prohibit driving in the left lane when traffic conditions, flow or road configuration, such as the potential of merging traffic, require the use of the left lane to maintain safe traffic conditions; provided further, this paragraph shall not prohibit driving in the left lane of a roadway within the city limits of a municipality or upon a county road as long as such roadway is not part of the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways or a turnpike.
Everything being discussed here is either an Interstate or a Turnpike.

[Just the facts]

Not really. This is from the statute.

A vehicle shall not be driven in the left lane of a roadway except when overtaking and passing another vehicle; provided, however, this paragraph shall not prohibit driving in the left lane when traffic conditions, flow or road configuration, such as the potential of merging traffic, require the use of the left lane to maintain safe traffic conditions; provided further, this paragraph shall not prohibit driving in the left lane of a roadway within the city limits of a municipality or upon a county road as long as such roadway is not part of the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways or a turnpike.
Everything being discussed here is either an Interstate or a Turnpike.

I guess you can characterize it how you want but OHP says they don't enforce it in urban areas.

https://www.governing.com/archive/tn...-oklahoma.html