Subject: Re: A Left Lane Laggard Wants to Know

From: [email-masked] (KENNY MORSE)
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 01:42:50

In article <[email-masked]> nooneuno  wrote:
>Okay, at the risk of inciting multiple flames, I will ask this question:
>
>When I am driving in the left lane on a two lane freeway, typically at 
>65-70mph, and someone comes up on my tail wanting to pass, why is it I 
>who is obligated to change lanes?  Lane changes are a frequent cause of 
>accidents, and thus I have to take that risk because someone else wants 
>to go 75 or 80.  So you say, then just stay in the right lane.  Well, 
>that also is dangerous, because then I have to still change lanes 
>frequently to pass slower drivers and to make room for mergers.  So, 
>when I am driving a respectable speed and I am in the left lane, GO 
>AROUND ME IF YOU WANT TO PASS, and endanger your own life, not mine.
>
>
>Heres your answer.

The LEFT LANE is the PASSING LANE....not a thru lane for YOU.  If you are doing 65-70, and 
someone comes up behind you doing 85......you're BOTH brain donors for speeding and becoming 
my future students, but you have a legal obligation to CLEAR THE PASSING LANE for someone 
who wants to pass you!  Your understand of the lane was simply incorrect.

65-70 a "respectable speed"?  Please. Only if you LOVE paying higher insurance, or love losing the 
driving priveledge.  Most of the people I get in class were going between 65-75.  65 is MORE than 
enough to get you a ticket in California.  I've been teaching for 8 years, not to mention my "on air" 
live call in shows, and your mis-conception of "respectable" and the Passing Lane, is not 
uncommon.  Thanks for helping to send me to Tahiti this year. I appreciate it!

---

From: nooneuno <nowhere>
Date: 20 Jul 1995 23:58:02 GMT

---

From: Corey Alambar <corwyn>
Date: 21 Jul 1995 09:44:07 GMT

Well, the first line of your response was succinct and to the point.  It is a
point people, especially out here on the West Coast seem to miss:  The left
lane is NOT a through lane, but merely a passing lane.  Those here in
California would do well to learn from Oregon, which has actual signs detailing
etiquette and lane usage.

As for the rest of your post, I could tell you are a radio personality.  The
loud, obnoxious, in-your-face attitude.  And you're an INSTRUCTOR?  If I got
you as a teacher for anything, I think I'd demand a refund from the school.
Your condescending attitude and arrogance are all too well the appearance other
people get of California.  Try being CIVIL sometime.  It might get you and
those you're trying to talk to to a slightly better position than absolute
mutual disgust.

-Corey

Corwyn J. Alambar, Silicon Graphics Technical Support

And if you think this is the opinion of Silicon Graphics, shake your head
rapidly from side to side and think again.

---

From: [email-masked] (Tim Irvin)
Date: 21 Jul 1995 14:56:36 GMT

Corey Alambar (corwyn) wrote:
: Well, the first line of your response was succinct and to the point.  It is a
: point people, especially out here on the West Coast seem to miss:  The left
: lane is NOT a through lane, but merely a passing lane.  Those here in
: California would do well to learn from Oregon, which has actual signs detailing
: etiquette and lane usage.

This is true, but California traffic tnds to be heavier.  Driving in the right
lane on an urban California freeway is very difficult; there is so much 
traffic merging on to and getting off the road that you must constantly 
brake and accelerate, brake and accelerate...

Contrast that with, say, I-90 in Montana, where traffic is so light that you
can cruise the right lane at 60 or 65, turn on the cruise control, and not
have to change your speed for many miles at a time.

Rural California is not terribly unlike most of the country.  The stuff you
see in rural California tends to be the city folks who aren't used to being
able to cruise in the right lane.  Yet the locals, who are used to having
traffic light enough to keep right, have no problems doing so.

There are a lot of stereotypes about California drivers, but I have to
make at least a *partial* defense of them.  What deficiencies they seem
to have in keeping right are at least in part caused by the volume of 
traffic typically seen in urban areas there and not because of some 
inherently selfish behavior.  At least that's my take on it...

-- 
* Tim Irvin is [email-masked]      * WWW:  http://www.rahul.net/ziggy29
***************************************************************************** 
* Beware of geeks bearing .GIFs!      * GCS: !h s:+ !g au+ C++$ v++ w+ U N++ 
* softball 95: 23 games, 11-12, .655  * W po+ Y+ j++ B-- e+++ u** r+++ y+++

---

From: Corey Alambar <corwyn>
Date: 21 Jul 1995 09:35:40 GMT

Well, you asked for flames, so here's one:

A commonly cited statistic here, I've noticed is that a majority of accidents
are caused by speeding.  What they don't seem to report is the REAL point
behind these statistics.  In a uniform flow of traffic, doing 90, the accident
rate is NO HIGHER than for the same CONSISTENT speed flow doing 35.  What
causes accidents is not exessive speed, but excessive speed DIFFERENCE.  If
there is someone doing 75-80, and someone else doing 55, that is a HUGE
difference.  You're passing other cars as fast or faster than you (should) pass
pedestrians in a school zone.

With that said, look at what you just said.  You are in the left lane, doing
slower than the speed of the person behind you.  Passing on the right is an
offense in most states (My native New York is one of them), for the following
reason:  SLOWER TRAFFIC MOVES ON THE RIGHT.  Simple rules of courtesy.

So, what you are saying is basically this:  I don't want to move to the right,
and make room.  So I'll make this guy whip around me, and possibly hit someone
doing 30 miles an hour slower.  I'm going to possibly cause an accident because
I didn't want to be bothered with getting out of the way and following some
common courtesy on the road.  If there was an accident, you SHOULD be held as
responsible as the person you are forcing to pass you on the right.  Period.

There are signs along many roads, particularly the Grapevine, Rte. 17 in Santa
Clara/Santa Cruz counties, I-5 near Yreka, etc. that all say "SLOWER TRAFFIC
KEEP RIGHT."  Try following the signs on the road sometime.

*flame mode off*

There.  I said it.  One of my biggest frustrations on my commute every day over
17 from Sata Cruz is people doing 45 in the left lane.  You can flash your
lights at them, etc., to get right, but to no avail.  And unlike some, I do not
like to pass on the right, especially with all of those roads that meet the
freeway directly (17 is not limited access through the mountains).  I have an
older car, and riding the brakes could cause some serious problems, not the
least of which is them not working properly once I reach the bottom of the
Hill.  Eventually I end up pulling around this individual because I want to
prevent a trafic backup like invariably occur with this kind of person.  I've
seen it happen on other freeways, not just mountain roads.

-Corey

Corwyn J. Alambar, Silicon Graphics Technical Support ([email-masked])

This post is in no way affiliated or associated with Silicon Graphics, Inc.

---

From: [email-masked] (mckay_michael)
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 22:26:09 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> Corey Alambar <corwyn> writes:
>17 from Sata Cruz is people doing 45 in the left lane.  
    I think Highway 17 tends to be almost unique, in that during heavy traffic 
periods, the right lane becomes both the slow lane and the passing lane
(although this has been less true as slow trucks have been getting better
about not driving during the commute).  Many of the less skilled drivers
don't like merging into the left lane (going 45-60mph), when they are stuck
behind a truck doing 10-35mph, so they stay in the right lane and slow every
body else down.  I tend to drive 70th percentile on 17 (bit higher on the curves
and a bit lower on the straights :-) and find that often I do have to pass on
the right, unless I want to do 40mph (cars of limited hp trying to go up
hill if nothing else) following behind cars that don't pull over.

>I have an older car, and riding the brakes could cause some serious 
>problems, not the least of which is them not working properly once I reach 
>the bottom of the Hill.  
    You need a new car!  Or new brakes!  Highway 17 is not a place for a
car with fading brakes.  From a slightly different tact, how about changing
your driving style.  Even during rush hour, I rarely use my brakes (usually
use them only to warn cars behind me that I'm slowing down).  Don't follow so
close, and anticipate what the next several cars in front of you are doing.
Not only does this cause less stress on the drivers (you and people around
you), it is easier on the car and even saves gas (Road and Track had an 
excellent article on saving gas while driving about 4 years ago, the key is
that everytime you brake {or use compression braking} you are consuming
extra energy).  Since they are not going to pull over for you anyway, bide
your time until you can pass them.   -mjm-

---

From: [email-masked] (John Reece)
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 95 00:41:55 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
   Corey Alambar <corwyn> wrote:

>There.  I said it.  One of my biggest frustrations on my commute 
>every day over 17 from Santa Cruz is people doing 45 in the left lane.  
>You can flash your lights at them, etc., to get right, but to no avail.  

Although I'm pretty militant about slower traffic keeping right, and I 
also make that commute, you have to recognize that 17 presents quite a 
dilemma to a driver who wants to go the limit (50 mph) and keep right
except to pass.  That's because of all the very slow trucks going
35 mph or less.  If one moves over one is very likely to come around a 
curve and find oneself stuck behind one of these trucks for a very long 
time, as  type-A drivers are also reluctant to let the poor bastards 
back into the left lane to pass the truck.  Most days I do follow
a policy of giving a break to *one* driver caught in such a 
situation.

-----------------------+---------------------------------------------
John Reece             | A gun kept in Nicole Simpson's home would
Not an Intel spokesman | have been 43 times more likely to have been
		       | used to kill a family member than a burglar.

---

From: Chuck Fry <[email-masked]>
Date: 21 Jul 1995 15:40:12 GMT

In many states, there are signs on the freeway that say:
 KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT TO PASS

Is it *that* dangerous or difficult to obey this rule?  I do this on the
open road, and I'm not exactly a slow driver.
 -- Chuck
-- 
Chuck Fry  [email-masked]  [email-masked]  [email-masked]
The Communications Decency Act, promoting Internet censorship, passed the
US Senate.  DON'T LET IT PASS IN THE HOUSE!  Call your Congresscritter.
         See http://www.cdt.org/cda.html for more information.

---

From: [email-masked] (Tim Simmons)
Date: 21 Jul 1995 09:49:49 -0700

In article <[email-masked]>, nooneuno  <nowhere> wrote:
>who is obligated to change lanes?

I think the law says "slower traffic keep right" I don't think it matters
that both parties are speeding.  Irregardless of the law my answer is
you should move right because it is common courtesy.

  Lane changes are a frequent cause of 
>to go 75 or 80.

No one says you have to move right when it is unsafe to do so.  If it
is me behind you, I will give you a little time to pick a safe place to move
right.  If this opportunity comes and goes, and you still don't move over
I will then get pissed and flash my brights.

> So, 

This attitude really angers me.  If you are going 100mph and the guy
behind wants to go 110, you should move over.

The rule is so simple that is is hard for me to understand why so many
people have a problem with it.  Once again the rule is:

"Slower traffic keep right"

the rule is NOT "slower traffic kep right, unless you are doing above 55"

Any questions?

-- 
_______________________________________________________________________________
Tim Simmons             
Auspex Systems               The World's Best NFS Servers

---

From: [email-masked] (John Reece)
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 95 00:34:26 GMT

>who is obligated to change lanes?  

Because the cumulative result of all you fast-lane hogs is to create
more chaotic traffic patterns that lead to accidents.  In Europe it
is unheard of for slower cars not to move over.  Passing on the
right (left in the UK) is therefore usually not necessary if not
illegal.  A whole category of lane changes is eliminated --
faster cars weave only around to the left, never around to the right.

Furthermore, a fast-lane hog is operating his vehicle in one of two 
states, neither desirable.  Either the hog is oblivious to what's
going on around him, or he's indulging in deliberate
passive-aggressive behavior and raising the overall
level of aggression on the highway.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 21 Jul 1995 20:11:04 GMT

[email-masked] (Tim Irvin) writes:
>: It is a

>brake and accelerate, brake and accelerate...

Well I agree with the above on say three lane highways/expressways
around here in the BA(one lane being the dreaded carpool lane -- strategically
placed as the rightmost lanes at times). However on big 4 lane freeways,
(101 & I-280 here in the BA come to mind) I find it quite irritable
to find traffic doing EXACTLY the same speed across all four lanes
(with plenty of open road ahead). It's amazing to see all the faster cars
pile up behind the moving roadblock and yet not one of the ignorant
drivers wants to move over and let faster traffic go by. This causes the
more aggressive drivers to cut across 4 lanes of traffic, cut people off, pass on the right,
and then swerve all the way across back to the left. Then the ensuing
rush of other hey!-that-driver-made-it-by-passing-on-the-right-so-can-I!
drivers go for it too.

- Jeffrey

* HKS * Lightspeed * Neuspeed * Tokico * Dunlop * Racing Sparco *
|    1993 Honda Integra "1ABGSR" No Vtrick 15.8s @ 82 mph       |
|   [email-masked] [email-masked]      |
*  K & N * Levoc * Razo * Momo * Alpine * Hondasport *  EuroX   *

---

From: [email-masked] (Tim Irvin)
Date: 25 Jul 1995 14:42:08 GMT

[email-masked] wrote:
: [email-masked] (Tim Irvin) writes:
: >Corey Alambar (corwyn) wrote:
: >: It is a
: >: point people, especially out here on the West Coast seem to miss:  The left
: >: lane is NOT a through lane, but merely a passing lane.  Those here in
: >: California would do well to learn from Oregon, which has actual signs detailing
: >: etiquette and lane usage.

: >This is true, but California traffic tnds to be heavier.  Driving in the right
: >lane on an urban California freeway is very difficult; there is so much 
: >traffic merging on to and getting off the road that you must constantly 
: >brake and accelerate, brake and accelerate...

: Well I agree with the above on say three lane highways/expressways
: around here in the BA(one lane being the dreaded carpool lane -- strategically
: placed as the rightmost lanes at times). However on big 4 lane freeways,
: (101 & I-280 here in the BA come to mind) I find it quite irritable
: to find traffic doing EXACTLY the same speed across all four lanes
: (with plenty of open road ahead). 

With four lanes, I tend to cruise in the second lane from the right when
there is heavy traffic; later at night or early morning on weekends, I
cruise in the right lane.  

On urban freeways, you do need at least three lanes each way (four if 
there is a carpool lane) because the right lane is basically an 
acceleration/deceleration lane in many cases for merging traffic.
Try staying in the right lane on northbound 101 from southern San
Jose to Sunnyvale in the morning.  You could make a convincing 
argument that you need to stay in the the #2 lane because you are
"passing" constantly arriving traffic from the onramps.

But there is certainly no need--and no *excuse*--for staying in 
the left lane of a highway with more than two lanes each way.  There
is also no excuse for staying in the left lane on a rural highway,
even with only two lanes.

: It's amazing to see all the faster cars
: pile up behind the moving roadblock and yet not one of the ignorant
: drivers wants to move over and let faster traffic go by. This causes the
: more aggressive drivers to cut across 4 lanes of traffic, cut people off, pass on the right,
: and then swerve all the way across back to the left. Then the ensuing
: rush of other hey!-that-driver-made-it-by-passing-on-the-right-so-can-I!
: drivers go for it too.

At least with four lanes, it's hard to get four vehicles travelling at
the exact same (slow) speed side by side.  Here in the San Jose area, that
happens all the time on two lane highways (880 between Montague and 101,
87) and on three-lane highways during carpool hours (85).  It's very
annoying.  It's happened to me--even on Speedway 280 on the peninsula,
where ethere is four lanes each way and relatively little traffic.

Unfortunately, with idiots clogging up the left lane for no good reason,
passing on the right has become a necessary evil.

---

From: [email-masked] (mckay_michael)
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 1995 03:09:05 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> Corey Alambar <corwyn> writes:
>[email-masked] (mckay_michael) wrote:
> find that often I do have to pass on
>I find myself seriously disliing passing on the right, especially on curves,
>precisely BECAUSE there are slow trucks (doing between 15 (!!) and 45 mph) that
>you might not see save for their effect.
    I did not say this was a "good" feature, just one that [in my experience]
was unique.  This used to bother me a lot more before I changed my commute 
car to one with more power (no accident that).  My old Datsun 310 only had
65hp!  Actually, by carefully watching traffic, you can reduce the risk 
somewhat, I can usually tell there is a slow truck ahead by watching the way
people drive.

>Good suggestions all.  But there is anothe problem:  A uniquely Californian
>thing, I have noticed.  Even New Yorkers on the Long Island Expressway, who
>drive inordinately close, would consider the average following disance out here
>to be insane.  I measured it once.  I can't give more than a 1 second following
>time, or someone WILL jump in in front of me, and almost invariably step on the
>brakes because they were moving pretty fast to be able to get into the spot in
>the first place.  So I have to jump all over the brakes.
    I come from a strong anti-tailgaiting background.  Still after years of
commuting over highway 17 I've noticed myself driving closer than before.
It usually goes in cycles, I start to drive close for several weeks than
drop back.  Having said that, too close for me starts at 1 second, and dropping
back means 1.5 to 2 seconds.  Basically you have to allow people to get in
front of you.  This is often somewhat difficult for me personally because I
go slow in the straights (where they pull in front of me) and I have to live
with them slowing me down in the curves.  But since I'm not in a race, just
a necissary commute, I live with it.  Still, I average over 50K between brake
jobs, and get 50-60K out of soft-performance tires.  I just avoid pushing 
things unless they are really needed.
>
>Basically,. it's a matter of common courtesy, lack of skill/confidence, and
>necessity.  Most everyone who commutes over 17 does it in part because they
>HAVE to.  There is no rail corridor, and the 17 Express bus is infequent and
>useless to get to points outside of San Jose in any kind of timely fashion.
>(to get to Mountain VIew, for example, from Santa Cruz takes 45 mins. to 1 hr
>by car.  It takes 3 1/2 hours by "mass transit") -Corey
   Agreed!  Late commute take 38-45 minutes one way, bus + transfers is 1 hour
45 minutes (not counting driving to the park&ride).   -mjm-

---

From: [email-masked] ()
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 1995 12:58:10 GMT

>Okay, at the risk of inciting multiple flames, I will ask this question:

Looks like you have done exactly that.  Hard to believe that it isn't
a troll.

<snip>
>AROUND ME IF YOU WANT TO PASS, and endanger your own life, not mine.

What a profoundly arrogant statement.

First of all, who are YOU to determine what is a "respectable" speed?
Obviously, posted speed limits are not a valid argument here, as you
freely admit that you pay no attention to them:  So then how is it that
YOU are qualified to determine how fast traffic shall go, seeing that
there is a fair quantity of good drivers that won't pass on the right?

Secondly, you create more of a hazard to yourself and others by not
moving over, for several reasons.  I'm sure I don't have to educate you
as to the inherent dangers of passing on the right, but there is another
factor that you probably didn't consider.  That is, you might enrage
another driver (by refusing to let them pass) to the point that they
run your sorry ass into a ditch.

Move over.  The life you save may be your own.

---

From: [email-masked] (mckay_michael)
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 1995 03:09:05 GMT

---

From: [email-masked] ()
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 1995 12:58:10 GMT

<snip>

---

From: [email-masked] (mckay_michael)
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 1995 03:09:05 GMT

---

From: [email-masked] (John Reece)
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 95 20:27:40 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
   Mark Vodhanel <[email-masked]> wrote:
>[email-masked] (Tim Simmons) wrote:

>Cars are doing all kinds of funny things getting around these rituous 
>jerks, but there they sit doing the speed limit.  They must think they 
>are doing their part for freeway safety, but somehow don't notice all 
>the close calls thay are causing by not moving over.  

They're also going to have a more dangerous time of it when they
eventually make their move to the exit, due to all the traffic 
they're forcing to pass on their right....

John Reece
Not an Intel spokesman