The Left Lane/Right Lane Thunderdome Thread

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

But how am I 'overseeing' or enforcing anything? I'm not - I'm merely offering up my viewpoints on what I saw. I've not talked about drivers enforcing anything.
In short - what are you on about?

Well, by that logic, neither is Enoch Root. Both of you are offering prescriptions for how people should behave, and rationales for them. Your prescriptions for the "rules of the road" encroach on territory covered by the traffic safety act and other laws; his largely don't. At least until those laws are changed to something similar to what exists in BC.

That's the point - if we're going to have unwritten driving rules that everyone agrees to go by, they shouldn't conflict with provincial law, but they also shouldn't overlap with it. Everyone obeying provincial law is presumed. You guys are talking about different things, which is why he keeps saying your concerns about speeding and unsafe driving aren't relevant to what he's talking about.

[JiriHrdina]

Right so basically he wants to create a system where it is in fact EASIER to break the law yes?

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Semi drivers are possibly the worst of the worst. They should, by law, have to stick the the right lane. In fact, anyone driving more than four wheels should be in the right lane only.

Yeah... I like that.

I think some places already do that by having different speed limits for trucks. Since they are going slower then traffic they naturally tend to be in the right lane.

Part of the problem is there is a threshold where left only to pass no longer works. Once the roads get so congested there are too many additional variables for it to work effectively.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Robbob

Part of the problem is there is a threshold where left only to pass no longer works. Once the roads get so congested there are too many additional variables for it to work effectively.

Notwithstanding some confusion and misinterpretation of peoples' views, I think everyone's actually on the same page on this.

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Right so basically he wants to create a system where it is in fact EASIER to break the law yes?

I suppose that's true, but the aim of the system he's talking about isn't concerned with whether it's easier or harder to break the law. It's concerned with efficient traffic flow. That is, his prescriptions are aimed at making traffic flow better whether people are obeying the law or not.

You can argue whether his proposed rules actually would have that effect or not. You might argue that this will lead to more high-speed accidents which would actually result in more large-scale delay, for example. But the morality and legality question is a separate issue.

I don't want to put words in Enoch's mouth, but I'm pretty sure he'd agree that regardless of how easy or hard it is to break traffic laws, people shouldn't break traffic laws.

[united]

Having driven just over 2,000 km this past long weekend, with this thread in mind, my thoughts.

First I'll disclose that in rural areas I'm typically in the 30-35 km/h over the posted speed limit camp, when other traffic (and weather, obviously) allows.
Some argue that the speed limit is the maximum one should go to remain safe, because it's the law and there are no bad laws, right? however I disagree for a two reasons.

• Speed limits are outdated - as technology improves, they should increase, which they haven't. Also, in some areas they are clearly set artificially low and also happen to have frequent speed traps. Gotta get that $.
• The limits must be set to cover all vehicles on the road. To use an extreme example, I have far more trust in a new Ferrari whose driver has taken multiple advanced driving courses going 50 km/h over than I do the new driver who is nervous and unpredictable in a rusting, old, poorly-maintained vehicle going the speed limit. It isn't possible to set speed limits by vehicle/driver, so they must cover all. Nothing can change that, but using arbitrary numbers to declare some dangerous and others not, with no other context, is ridiculous.

With that in mind, regardless of speed the biggest thing I saw was tailgating. It is absolutely ridiculous how close many people follow those in front of them. As above, I am a serial speeder, but I always maintain a large gap - I want to be able to take evasive action if need be and improve my range of vision...why wouldn't anyone regardless of speed? Yet multiple times on single-lane highways, in the middle of a pack of tens of cars all stuck behind a semi or motorhome going 95 km/h, where nobody can do anything but wait for a passing lane, I had people cruising within 5 m of my bumper. Why?! I can't pass, you can't pass, I can't speed up...nobody can. If anything happens to me, you are now ####ed also and for no reason.

The other one was when a two-lane road expands into a three-lane road, with large signs saying for everyone to move right, yet nobody does. Again, why? However these have become my favourite stretches of highway because of that fact the middle lane will remain at 90-105 km/h, the left lane will be a mix of 115-125 km/h, while the right lane is wide open for us 140ers to bomb up. Awesome! You do get the odd competent driver who moves to the right, but then the middle is free in their place so it works out for all. It's just so bizarre when some of these third lanes are kilometres long, and you are flying past everyone in the far right lane while they look puzzled.

Others:

• Don't tailgate regardless of speed. It does nothing but put you in danger and irritate, or worse frighten, those ahead of you. The worst is when there is giant speed differential e.g., someone passing at 115 while someone at 130 flies up to them and camps 10 feet from their bumper. There is no reason to, assuming the 115 vehicle is competent enough to move over shortly (not always the case).
• Stay in the right-most lane unless necessary to be in another lane. If you can be in the right lane, but aren't in the right lane, why aren't you? Move over. Even at 30 over, it's a smooth organic process: cruise in the right lane, change to the left to pass, as soon as safely possible return to the right lane. Repeat.
• Others will argue that if they are doing the limit in the left lane, they aren't doing anything wrong. While technically true, the only reason to do so is to intentionally inconvenience other people. If you get a kick out of inconveniencing other people, you have other issues too.

Lastly, none of this applies during times of extreme congestion, such as yesterday (a holiday Monday).
Just set your cruise control with the flow of traffic and relax. When a passing lane comes, bomb up it, then resume the casual flow. The worst people in these times, on single-lane highways, are the people who accelerate past a car or two, only to squeeze into a small gap and slam on their brakes.
On double-lane highways there is going to be strugglers who camp in the left lane because they are afraid of getting "stuck" in the right lane (otherwise known as not being competent enough to merge back into the left lane) but there is nothing you can do about it. If there is a big enough gap you can pass on the right but there isn't many chances.

In summary, speed limits are outdated and low (the 120 zones in B.C. are great), and everyone should use common sense by letting faster-travelling vehicles pass. Easy, right?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Why?

When you focus on semantics, you just look like you've got nothing real to say. Jiri isn't policing the roads. He made a judgement. He's not out there going Mad Max on people who he perceives to have wronged him. He's on here, like you and Enoch and Cliff and I. You know why the police aren't handling Enoch's rules?

Because they don't matter here. Nobody really cares. Handful of knobs and snobs, that's it. The rest of us just get on with our lives. It doesn't REALLY matter, but it's a fun conversation.

If it's not hypocritical, it's childish. Or petty. Take your pick - my point is the same. Enoch's condemnation of Jiri's safety judgement has absolutely zero value. It's ironic to me that he is telling Jiri not to police the roads while he's busy policing the roads.

Is that really irony? Who knows? I'll pop an Alanis album in the car while I'm cruising in the left lane and hope the answer dawns on me.

[Leeman4Gilmour]

Here's a way it was explained to me by someone who designs roads;

Think of the highway as a pipe.
Think of the cars as the water.
When the amount of "water" is equal to or less than then the capacity the "pipe" was designed for, the flow will be smooth.
When the amount of "water" is greater than the capacity of the "pipe", the flow will be slow and can even stop.
As a water molecule, when you try to break through this back up, you create turbulence.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Lol.

"Enoch, you're a hypocrite!"

"No he's not. Here is a reasoned explanation as to why he isn't."

"That's just semantics! Why do you have to be so granular, just let me call him a hypocrite without worrying about what it means or whether it applies!"

[Shazam]

CorsiHockeyLeague likes fairness.

You're a hypocrite if you're not fair.

Society should be fair.

Ergo, you're being unfair, and being a hypocrite is bad.

CorsiHockeyLeague needs to learn a new term:

"Own best interest."

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Notwithstanding some confusion and misinterpretation of peoples' views, I think everyone's actually on the same page on this.

I suppose that's true, but the aim of the system he's talking about isn't concerned with whether it's easier or harder to break the law. It's concerned with efficient traffic flow. That is, his prescriptions are aimed at making traffic flow better whether people are obeying the law or not.

You can argue whether his proposed rules actually would have that effect or not. You might argue that this will lead to more high-speed accidents which would actually result in more large-scale delay, for example. But the morality and legality question is a separate issue.

I don't want to put words in Enoch's mouth, but I'm pretty sure he'd agree that regardless of how easy or hard it is to break traffic laws, people shouldn't break traffic laws.

That's a good area to focus on and Cliff's post did an excellent job of outlining why it doesn't work. On a day like yesterday, there is simply too much overall traffic, regardless of speed for the left lane to be used exclusively or even primarily for passing.

So what is right, is in part situational and needs common sense applied.

[PepsiFree]

Your explanation was vapid and oh so you Corsi. Oh, they're both making slightly different judgements on the way people should drive so it couldn't possibly be seeing as hypocritical based on your own inferences of exactly what's being said?

Always a great addition.

[undercoverbrother]

Is this now the CHL and PepsiFree Thunderdome?

[Acey]

Originally Posted by united

Others will argue that if they are doing the limit in the left lane, they aren't doing anything wrong. While technically true...

I would in fact argue that this breaking the law, as there are signs that state one should keep right except to pass and said signs make no mention of speed.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

So what is right, is in part situational and needs common sense applied.

Absolutely. I don't think anyone disagree with this if you put it to them in these terms. Robbob put it really well above when he talked about a "threshold". The question is where that threshold is - where is the point, beyond which, the "keep right except to pass" rules go out the window because there's enough traffic that the most efficient traffic flow is promoted by using the entire carrying capacity of the road more or less equally. The point at which that threshold has been exceeded is going to be "common sense" to everyone, but obviously different people will have a different idea of what that means.

What Enoch was suggesting on the prior page is that if someone is passing you on the right, there must be enough room in front of him for him to manage to pass you on the right, and therefore there probably isn't enough traffic congestion for that threshold to have been reached.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Is this now the CHL and PepsiFree Thunderdome?

He's mad because I won't return his DMs

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Your explanation was vapid and oh so you Corsi. Oh, they're both making slightly different judgements on the way people should drive so it couldn't possibly be seeing as hypocritical based on your own inferences of exactly what's being said? Always a great addition.

This is why I don't like the way you post. I disagreed with you, and gave you reasoned explanations for why I disagree, which you have since referred to as follows:

Originally Posted by Pepsifree

That is a patently dumb way of looking at that, and a bit of a reach even for you.

Originally Posted by Pepsifree

Your explanation was vapid and oh so you Corsi.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

He's mad because I won't return his DMs

What's the purpose of acting this way? It's like you're asking for me to be a jerk right back to you. I'm doing my best to resist, here. And I only messaged you one time, asking you what your problem was, and as I said I never got a response (even though you claim to have sent one) so you're actually lying here and you know it.

I would in fact argue that you are breaking the law, as there are signs that state one should keep right except to pass and said signs make no mention of speed.

I think in Alberta they just say "Slower traffic keep right", which is vague. But either way, there's no law on the books here specifically requiring that people do this - as has been mentioned a few times, there is such a law in BC.

[PepsiFree]

Fun?

[4X4]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I'm pretty sure this scenario has never happened in the history of automobile transportation.

Really? This happens all the time for me on highways with more than one lane. One guy takes up the lead and goes about 20 over the limit, and a bunch of cars follow him, and then they all leapfrog the people in the right lane in succession. The leader always goes back to the right lane after passing, and if anyone that's following him wants to pass him and take the lead, there's the chance.

Originally Posted by taco.vidal

The leader? LOL.

Dude, you are an insufferable assclown. Did you need me to dumb it down a bit for you? You don't grasp what I'm talking about, so you just mock a word? Ok, I'm talking about the guy at the front of a pack of cars. The dictionary definition is 'Leader'.

You've clearly taken up hating me, which I really don't care about. But you just make yourself look stupid with posts like this.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Uh I didn't quote your post. Who are you talking to?

Either way, it's weird for you to be telling Jiri he's not the road police, when all you're currently doing is attempting to police the driving of others with your own opinions on how it should work. You don't see the hypocrisy in that at all?

No, I am not being hypocritical.

I have been debating this left lane issue ever since I moved out west 30 years ago (because it is worse here than anywhere else I have ever been).

What I have gathered over that time is that there are two basic defenses of not getting out of the left lane. The first boils down to some version of 'the other driver is driving too fast' or 'the other driver is driving dangerously', or 'the other driver is being aggressive/tailgating/an asshat', or 'I'm going fast enough' (which is just another way of saying 'they are going too fast').

In other words, it always comes back to not wanting to get over because they don't like the way the other person is driving.

What I am saying is that if EVERYONE simply gets over, these issues simply don't occur anywhere near as often.

The second is some variation of a congestion argument. But congestion usually exists because someone screwed up and didn't get over, causing a backlog in the left lane. (Yes, there are times when there is simply too much congestion and both lanes bog down - that does not have any baring on the discussion though).

Here's the thing (again): it works everywhere else. And it works just fine in many places that have heavier traffic flows than Alberta does. That is the elephant in the room that the apologists never address.

When I posted about passing on the right, Jiri's reply was 'safely' passing on the right - can you not see the inherent judgement in that? (vs discussing a system)

[polak]

See how much happier we could all be if everyone just shut the #### up and used the right lane exclusively for passing.