What I've never understood about this idea is that it suggests that speeding must not be illegal in that passing lane. But that's not true. So then how does a law for a passing lane work?
Speeding is still illegal, but so is creating a traffic hazard by impeding drivers who wish to speed. The overall principle is that unsafe behavior on the road is prohibited. Full stop. It doesn't matter that your behavior is unsafe only because other people's behavior is also unsafe and prohibited.
There's usually a clause in traffic ordinances that state something along the lines of "regardless of any of the other laws here, drivers have a duty to avoid collisions if they can."
Basically, what speed other people drive is not of anyone business except the police. If you are not overtaking, stay right and let them take the risk.
I'm not sure where you get the suggestion that there is no speed limit in the passing lane. We drive on the right so the safest place to pass is on the left where the driver is. If everyone stays right as much as possible and faster traffic (this does not imply speeding) can move left to pass then traffic flows smoothly.
Where are you getting the impression that speeding is allowed anywhere?
> Where are you getting the impression that speeding is allowed anywhere?
One reason is that in many places in the US, the normal traffic speed exceeds the legal posted limit by 5-15 miles per hour. If the law requires a driver travelling at the legal speed limit to stay out of the "passing lane" so that other drivers can pass, this would imply that the law condones speeding, since only a driver moving faster than the legal speed limit can make use of that lane. If the law was not intended to encourage exceeding the speed limit, it likely would have been written as something like "any driver moving less the legal speed limit must avoid the passing lane".
> If the law requires a driver travelling at the legal speed limit to stay out of the "passing lane" so that other drivers can pass, this would imply that the law condones speeding, since only a driver moving faster than the legal speed limit can make use of that lane.
That's not how it works. The law is "stay right except to pass". This is true regardless of speed. Speeding is still illegal in any lane. The "stay right" rule is about not obstructing the flow of traffic, it has nothing to do with the posted speed limit.
e: To clarify many people drive below the speed limit, in this case it is possible to pass them in a lane to the left without exceeding the speed limit.
> 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-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.
>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 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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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)
I can not provide parallel examples but I disagree with your premise that you are obligated to stay right to enable others to break the law. Even if you are the only car on the road you still must drive in the right lane unless passing.
The law says to stay right regardless of speed so there is no corner case based on traffic moving at the legal speed limit. Your obligation to stay right exists at all speeds.
The purpose of the law is to improve safety by enabling smooth traffic flow and creating a predictable environment on the road. This is the parallel with "yield to the right". Communication between drivers is difficult so we have a set of rules to guide us in situations where the next action may otherwise be unclear.
If two people meet in a hallway they can look at each other and say "excuse me" or "go ahead". This is not possible on the road. In the same way I can walk up behind someone on the sidewalk and say "excuse me" and walk around them. In a car this is not possible so we agree in advance (or rather, we are told by the authorities) what to do to avoid the situation and how to reconcile it.
In some jurisdictions the purpose of the left lane is explicitly passing, you have no right to drive there unless you are passing someone else. In this case your obligation to stay right has nothing to do with the existence of a speeder or even your rate of speed.
I am not defending speeding because it does increase risk and reduce safety on the road but it becomes much more dangerous when other drivers are also not following the rules. Breaking the speed limit while someone else violates the lane occupancy laws creates a compounding risk for everyone on the road. This is why we have rules against both.
I would turn your request for parallel examples around and ask you for examples of a situation where it is ok to break the law to prevent someone else from doing the same. How do you justify such an action and is there a calculation as to how far to go? Is it ok to jaywalk to stop a robbery? Is it ok to murder someone to prevent jaywalking? When is vigilantism justified?
I disagree with your premise that you are obligated to stay right to enable others to break the law.
My premise is actually a little different, which is that a keep-right law without an exclusion for vehicles travelling the speed limit implicitly condones speeding. I'm questioning the intent of the lawmakers, not suggesting that the state laws should not be followed as they currently exist.
The law says to stay right regardless of speed so there is no corner case based on traffic moving at the legal speed limit.
Well, except (as best as I can tell) for Alaska, Arkansas, Maryland, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, and South Dakota, plus a couple more that make an exception if you are travelling faster than traffic flow: http://www.mit.edu/~jfc/right.html.
Interestingly, though, it looks like the current trend is for states to move away from this approach that I feel is more logical, and switch to a blanket "keep right except to pass" that you seem to prefer. This would suggest that my concerns are becoming less widely shared by others.
I would turn your request for parallel examples around and ask you for examples of a situation where it is ok to break the law to prevent someone else from doing the same.
This is a question that does trouble me, but I'll start by reiterating that I'm not encouraging people to ignore this law. Rather, I'm more interested in whether laws of this sort have an overall positive effect for society.
But answering the question, I think nonviolent actions such as taking someone's car keys to prevent them from driving while intoxicated might be justifiable. I think there are cases where releasing classified documents showing illegal government activity is morally justifiable. And there are times when I'd approve of stopping a violent crime in progress using otherwise illegal force against the perpetrator.
Is it ok to jaywalk to stop a robbery?
Yes, although I guess you'd have to weigh the chance that the jaywalking would endanger others.
Is it ok to murder someone to prevent jaywalking?
Apart from contrived cases involving extremely fat pedestrians and runaway trolley cars, I have trouble coming up with a case where this would be appropriate.
How do you justify such an action and is there a calculation as to how far to go?
It points out that common law systems (most of the US) typically have few requirements for citizens to prevent or report third party crimes, while citizens in civil law systems (some of Europe) often have a greater legal obligation to do so. Generally this obligation is satisfied by reporting to the police, but in some jurisdictions (Israel) there is a further legal obligation "to use all reasonable means to prevent the commission" of any felony.
