how come the speed limit in california is so low when nobody even follows it?

[Racer4life]

it seems like most states have higher freeway speed limits than california and that californians dont really follow the posted limit anyways. why dont we have higher speed limits allowed?:confused

on a side question, why dont CHP pull over people in the fast lane talking on their cell phones driving 10-15mph slower than everyone else, isnt that illegal? i feel like they should get a warning for obstructing normal traffic flow. :laughing

[Kasha1]

Seems to me that they designate the speed limits based on what they consider to be the safe speed to go when on that highway. Just becuase everyone goes faster doesnt mean its safe to do so.

BUT anyone who tries to go the speed limit will be eaten alive by the cars behind them, so it doesnt seem right that they should be subject to recieve a ticket for going over the speed limit since they are just doing so to stay alive.

[Brash47]

I'm probably wrong here, but depending on who funds the money for the road in question....ie...an interstate, highway, town road...is most of the time who determines the speed limit.

The reason I say this is because:
1. speed surveys are done for that area
2. average speed is usually taken into account along with number of accidents
3. if the number of accidents is unusually high, then the limit is set lower than the average speed
4. depending on who funds it, there is already a max speed set for that road that will not be changed even though the average speed is higher, because there is a set high limit

that is a very ambiguous answer, I know, but the best I can do without some more research.

brash

[christofu]

OK, I'm going purely on conjecture here. I'm sure Brash has good insight into how things work but I'd also like to add my $0.02 worth:


Revenue. Don't scoff. Revenue from speeding tickets is an important part of the budget for cities and counties (and state?). If that revenue were to go away, taxes would have to go up to pay for the shortfall. So would you rather have taxes go up across the board, or continue with the current system which is effectively a tax on speeders?

Lobbying by Insurance Companies. Studies have shown that drivers who drive faster than average tend to be safer, better drivers. It's only when you get to the 90 percentile of lunatics that you see accident rates higher than the 0-50 percentile. In other words, statistically, if you're in the 51-89 percentile (i.e. you drive faster than at least 50% of people, but not as fast as the fastest 10%) then you have the lowest chance of being in an accident. And yet the Insurance Companies continue to target this group as being "high risk" (and raise their premiums) even though statistically there is less chance that the insurance company will ever have to pay out on that policy. The Insurance Companies have a vested interest in keeping limits low -- more speeding tickets = more revenue for them. (also, they provide underfunded police departments with radar guns).

By Federal Law, speed limits must be set as a result of an engineering survey by a trained traffic engineer, and set to the speed that the 80th percentile can travel. So... if you're traveling at the speed limit on 101, say, are only 20% of the drivers going faster than you? Nope. Therefore, I'd say that at some point there's going to be a huge lawsuit by some rich dude who just got a ticket against the cities, counties and state for setting speed limits to be artificially low in violation of Federal law.

You think you have it bad. See those signs that have the speed limit set to 55 for trucks and vehicles with trailers? I haven't traveled America much, but I only see that in CA. In NV, there's one speed limit (65, 70 or 75) on the highways and that's for everyone.

[bluenoser]

Man, I hope I don't drag this too off-topic, but christofu's last point is a major one.

I feel that one of the most hazardous conditions on any freeway has to be the slow drivers (stupid drivers are the most dangerous, but the two groups often intersect). If traffic is all moving at the same pace, then it's easy to gauge what the car next to you is doing. You can even work to do things like staggering. Once a slow driver enters the mix, the whole thing falls apart. The slower moving vehicle is the start of an "accordian effect" to all traffic behind them, and not just in the lane their in, but to the adjacent lanes as the drivers behind them look to get by them.

As for trailers, the variety of trailers and vehicles towing them aren't computed in that speed limit. I understand that a U-Haul packed with cement bricks needs more time to stop, but I sure hope the driver is aware of it too! However, I have seen drivers who were towing a motorcycle on a single-rail trailer pulled over for speeding.

The worst aspect of it all is that the way the laws are set up, the people towing trailers are going slower than the majority of traffic, and are forced to use the right-most lane (that whole "slower traffic keep right" thing). This becomes a great hazard to those merging onto or exiting a freeway.

[motorman4life]

Originally posted by bluenoser
Man, I hope I don't drag this too off-topic, but christofu's last point is a major one.

I feel that one of the most hazardous conditions on any freeway has to be the slow drivers (stupid drivers are the most dangerous, but the two groups often intersect).

In Germany, on the Autobahn for instance, they can drive much faster and have fewer accidents per capita. Why?

As I see it, there are 3 major facotrs:
1) Their highways are engineered for higher speeds. For the most part, ours are engineered for lower speeds. The design of the highway has as a significant impact on the designated speed limit.
2) They have different laws on passing. You cannot pass on the right and must move over to the right unless you are actively passing someone. The fast lane is for passing only. You pass and get back over to the right as soon as possible.
3) They generally don't have the congestion we have here.

There are other factors relating to skills, vehicle design, strict enforcement and heavy penalties, but these major factors all tend to make their roads safer at higher speeds..

Why don't we do it here?
1) We cannot afford to maintain our roads in the condition they do there. Potholes, ruts and uneven surfaces can be deadly at high speeds. American lawyers have done a good job of making the state our mother. When people screw up, they want to sue. They aren't going to sue themselves!
2) Our highways are chaos compared to German Autobahns. Our laws are much more lax and people already balk at them. People don't want to believe more enforcement and new laws could help to fix our problems, but I believe Germany has proven otherwise.
3) Our congenstion problems are getting worse and the trend toward agressive driving is clearly making it more dangerous.

There are no easy solutions. As I have said before.. use your advantage of maneuverability to get away from the 4-wheeled morons in their minivans and ride in control. Be alert and ride like they are out to get you and you MIGHT make it home alive!

[christofu]

Congestion is a funny one. I did a lot of queueing theory at university, so my steam really gets going when I watch people behaving in such a way as to actively slow traffic down when they think that they're being smart by (for example) changing lanes into a faster flowing lane.

Sure, if it was just one person, perhaps that would be a successful tactic. However, when half the people are doing it, all they're doing is slowing down the traffic in the lane they change into.

What REALLY kills me is when there's a queue of people getting around a slow moving vehicle (e.g. a truck going 55) and someone zooms down the inside and merges back in right behind the truck. Don't they know that the reason the traffic is moving so slowly in the first place is PRECISELY because of people doing that? Grrr.

Perhaps we should look at Variable Speed Limits, like on the M25 in England.

The speed limit signs vary, according to the conditions. Motorists are repeatedly (every 1/4 mile) reminded DO NOT CHANGE LANES. STAY IN YOUR LANE.
The speed limit is set to a speed that everyone can do. Therefore, there are no fast movers and no slow movers. Just people moving at the same rate, in every lane. Oh, the variable speed is enforced every 1/4 mile by speed cameras (I know, I know, let's not get stuck on that, though).

There ARE ways to reduce congestion. I just don't believe our politicians, nor our general public have the balls to enact them.

[bluenoser]

We need all the lanes set up like the carpool lanes in Southern California (or better yet, Seattle). Wide "barriers" to prevent lane-jumping.

As for the Autobahn, I caught the Discovery-channel piece on it, and I was surprised and pleased to hear the police force was more active in ticketing tailgaters than speeders. Sounds like they got their priorities right!

[Racer4life]

very good point all. i have another point about the ticketing of the speeders. do counties place more police control units out on ticket missions when the county is needing funds? cause i seem to notice alot more chp units out at the end of the month.

just a thought.

[deaconblues]

seattle does one better - the 'express' section of I-5 from Northgate to Downtown, only has a couple of exits, and switches directions to match up with commute hours.

The idea is, if you don't need to get off the road right away, you can take the bypass lanes. Means there's a lot less cross traffic coming in and out.

I'd disagree with the issues between slow traffic staying to the right interfering with traffic coming onto and getting off of a freeway. Given a few design considerations, there shouldn't be too much conflict.

1) Each ramp should be designed to allow traffic to merge onto the freeway, or exit, without having to decelerate drastically while still on the freeway, or accelerate drastically once on it. None of these 100-foot 15mph hairpin ramps!

2) There should be enough room for traffic getting off to maneuver to the rightmost lane and then exit without having to slalom their way through other vehicles. If each lane gets progressively slower from left to right (which should happen if you're only allowed to pass on the left) this shouldn't be an issue - as you slow down for your exit, you change lanes progressively. The same goes for people coming on - as you speed up, you move to the left to pass slower vehicles.

3) Multiple highway interchanges should not be combined with normal exit/entrance ramps where possible - since you're making two highways out of 1, or joining 2 into 1, there'll be lots of lane changes, and worrying about drivers tring to merge on or off to a ramp is just complicating things.

4) The number of lanes should be as constant as possible, and consistent with the amount of traffic. It makes absolutely no sense to squeeze 6 lanes down to 3 in the space of less than 2 miles, unless you want to create a perpetual traffic jam.

5) Placing metering lights at the END of the entrance ramp, right where it joins with the highway, is abysmally bad. If you need to meter traffic coming onto the highway, do it either at the cross street, or no further than halfway up the ramp. People need time to get up to highway speed before they get to the highway-speed traffic.


OK, now, I'm done ripping on the designers. Now for the drivers.


1) it is NOT stylish to camp out in the #1 lane. Yes, it is the lane furthest away from the entrance and exit ramps, but if you're paying attention, you should have the skill to either allow traffic to merge around you, or change lanes to make room. Again, lanes should get progressively SLOWER left to right.

2) Be aware of the road and where the exits are. The time to change lanes for your exit is NOT immediately beforehand, but a mile or two back. Same for entrances. You shouldn't dawdle up the ramp and then accelerate once you've succeeded in having people jam their brakes. That entrance ramp is designed to get you up to highway speed by the time you get to the highway - use it!

3) If you speed, you'll have to stick to the leftmost lane, or close to it. Take your lumps if you get caught.

4) because there's the slower traffic keep right progression, you should decelerate when changing lanes to the right, and accelerate as you change lanes to the left. Because traffic is moving slower than you to the right, you might want to time your slowing down so you can duck into an available spot without having to slow drastically (thereby making people behind you go batshit). As for moving to the left, accelerate such that you move into gaps behind faster cars.

[Sprinklerhead]

AFAIK CHP doesn't get any money from tickets. That all goes to the county and then the state gets a little bit from them.

[morthrane]

Originally posted by Brash47

1. speed surveys are done for that area


I've heard rumors that many municipalities conduct speed surveys, they post police units in order to artificially slow down traffic during the survey. Lower speed limit, more people "auto" speeding, more tickets issued down the road (no pun intended!).

Any truth to that one?

[zrxjake]

so why dont we impose a sticker program which participants could pay an up front fee and allow us to drive faster than peopel who dont pay the sticker fee. I would be happy to pay a reasonable fee and even take a driving test at higher speeds for the privledge. I frequently travel to la and san diego and 70 mph on highway 5 is ludicris. I'd rather pay a fee and drive faster legally than be ticketed when you run at a decent speed you can really save some time on long drives. not only that I pay more than my share of highway taxes levied in the cost of fuel.
I have driven between 60 and 100k per year for the last 25 years and have never had an at fault accident.

[b.rock]

Originally posted by deaconblues
seattle does one better - the 'express' section of I-5 from Northgate to Downtown, only has a couple of exits, and switches directions to match up with commute hours.

The idea is, if you don't need to get off the road right away, you can take the bypass lanes. Means there's a lot less cross traffic coming in and out.

I'd disagree with the issues between slow traffic staying to the right interfering with traffic coming onto and getting off of a freeway. Given a few design considerations, there shouldn't be too much conflict.

1) Each ramp should be designed to allow traffic to merge onto the freeway, or exit, without having to decelerate drastically while still on the freeway, or accelerate drastically once on it. None of these 100-foot 15mph hairpin ramps!

2) There should be enough room for traffic getting off to maneuver to the rightmost lane and then exit without having to slalom their way through other vehicles. If each lane gets progressively slower from left to right (which should happen if you're only allowed to pass on the left) this shouldn't be an issue - as you slow down for your exit, you change lanes progressively. The same goes for people coming on - as you speed up, you move to the left to pass slower vehicles.

3) Multiple highway interchanges should not be combined with normal exit/entrance ramps where possible - since you're making two highways out of 1, or joining 2 into 1, there'll be lots of lane changes, and worrying about drivers tring to merge on or off to a ramp is just complicating things.

4) The number of lanes should be as constant as possible, and consistent with the amount of traffic. It makes absolutely no sense to squeeze 6 lanes down to 3 in the space of less than 2 miles, unless you want to create a perpetual traffic jam.

5) Placing metering lights at the END of the entrance ramp, right where it joins with the highway, is abysmally bad. If you need to meter traffic coming onto the highway, do it either at the cross street, or no further than halfway up the ramp. People need time to get up to highway speed before they get to the highway-speed traffic.


OK, now, I'm done ripping on the designers.
I can probably tell you why these things are done.
:nerd
Your express point is well taken, there is a spacing limit on interchanges, about a mile in between local streets. Back in the day they didn't follow it, hence nightmares like 80/680/12 interchanges. There is also such thing as a dual-divided freeway which has things like that. Check out the 110 Transitway in LA, that's like that.
Reversible lanes are very expensive to operate and a lot of the areas around here, while having a peak direction, have really heavy flows both ways. Anyone who's had to wait for the damn Caldecott Tunnel when you're on the single tunnel direction knows about that.
1. Ramps - there are standards for such on decel/accel. They just didn't always follow them back in the day. Often doing it totally right is super expensive. But really, if you don't like those ramps, avoid them. 99% of the time there's another way very close.
2. That's interchange spacing and bad drivers.
3. You sound like the Federal Highway Administration - that's what they say too. mostly the result is that the local access will have to go away and the next interchange up will pick up the extra cars. It's a tradeoff. I'm assuming you're talking about things like the exits in the middle of the MacArthur maze and so on.
4. Pretty much what you are saying is that the other 3 lanes should be closed. That's the only way that will happen. Lane drops are bad. But almost all projects are done in segments. Perferably lane drops are done at exits.
5. That I actually think is a terrible idea. If you do that the local intersection will immediately and catastrophically fail. There is a standard for acceleration length after lights, and really, if the lights are on, traffic probably isn't going 80 either. It should be at about 30-40 mph if the lights are working as designed. Imagine those 100 cars or however queued up on the street, clipping off 2 lanes for 300 feet, through the intersection, blocking turns, etc... it's no good. Look again, those lights are not at the immediate end (unless they've bollocksed them up). There should be a couple hundred feet afterward.

I agree with the drivers things.

A road's limit cannot be enforced if the 85 percentile speed is above the speed limit.

christofu, I couldn't agree more. Everytime I drive I-5 and some fuckass zips around me as I'm going 85, on the right, then darts in right before a truck. Actually it happens a lot. Then everyone follows 10' apart from eachother to prevent it. Those fuckers make the trip take a lot longer and more stressful. I had someone do that to me one time bad enough to where I got the brakes in the cage locked and on the shoulder at ~85. I was furious - could have cheerfully shot that fucker in the face.

[b.rock]

Originally posted by zrxjake
so why dont we impose a sticker program which participants could pay an up front fee and allow us to drive faster than peopel who dont pay the sticker fee. I would be happy to pay a reasonable fee and even take a driving test at higher speeds for the privledge. I frequently travel to la and san diego and 70 mph on highway 5 is ludicris. I'd rather pay a fee and drive faster legally than be ticketed when you run at a decent speed you can really save some time on long drives. not only that I pay more than my share of highway taxes levied in the cost of fuel.
I have driven between 60 and 100k per year for the last 25 years and have never had an at fault accident.
It's coming, it's called a HOT lane [High occupancy / Toll]. What'll happen is that you can drive in the carpool lane by yourself. I think 680 is trying that soon. Not I-5 though. Not enough room. I-5 needs a 3rd lane...
Personally I think it sucks - if you're rich you get to ignore some laws! Yeah! :laughing

[Sprinklerhead]

I think that would pretty much ruin the HOV lanes. If they're going to do that, they should add on a couple of HOV lanes, raise the limit and have fewer exits. Make them actual high speed freeways, not just another lane that's going to get filled up with people getting on and off.

[b.rock]

Way back in the 50s LA considered that - they were thinking they'd double-deck a bunch of freeways, the top being 100 mph speed limit, very few exits.
I too like the divided HOV like LA has, but caltrans here does not. Oh well.

[Sprinklerhead]

Biggest problem with the HOV lanes up here compared to So Cal is that you can change lanes anywhere. I prefer Northern Cali, but give me Southern Cali freeway engineers.

[silversvs]

Originally posted by morthrane
I've heard rumors that many municipalities conduct speed surveys, they post police units in order to artificially slow down traffic during the survey. Lower speed limit, more people "auto" speeding, more tickets issued down the road (no pun intended!).

Any truth to that one?

None that I am aware of. The City traffic engineering folks conract for the surveys. We aren't told when or where they are being conducted. There is no way we could expend the resources to even make an effort to effectively limit people's speeds in order to skew the survey.

As for revenue coming to the City from tickets, it ain't much. Last I heard the percentage we get is in the mid to high teens. The courts, county, and state get the rest.

[Racer4life]

ahh so all the main orders are comin from the man, lol.

seems like when the state or county need funds like at the end of the month we pay the penalty if we are unluckily speeding.

[bluenoser]

Originally posted by SprinklerHead
Biggest problem with the HOV lanes up here compared to So Cal is that you can change lanes anywhere. I prefer Northern Cali, but give me Southern Cali freeway engineers.

Heh. Actually, you *can* change lanes anywhere down there, and people often do. Just that they *shouldn't*.

As for the "Lexus lanes", there is a major backlash on those, as they penalize the poor. It restricts access to freeways that we all paid for in our taxes.

Personally I'd rather see a ticketing scheme as they do in Finland, where your speeding ticket is based on your income. Who can recall when the CEO for Nokia got caught?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1759791.stm

[Trogdor]

Originally posted by christofu


What REALLY kills me is when there's a queue of people getting around a slow moving vehicle (e.g. a truck going 55) and someone zooms down the inside and merges back in right behind the truck. Don't they know that the reason the traffic is moving so slowly in the first place is PRECISELY because of people doing that? Grrr.


Perhaps, but when I do that, I still get around all you fools! :teeth

[motorman4life]

Originally posted by bluenoser
Heh. Actually, you *can* change lanes anywhere down there, and people often do. Just that they *shouldn't*.

They have lanes where there is a wall or raised barrier and you cannot get out of the lane for 2 or 3 exits. In some places they have dots and two sets of double yellow lines. In both cases, there are signs prohibiting you from going into or out of the lanes until there is a posted opening. Stiff fines for crossing over a double-double.

This makes them express lanes.

[Sprinklerhead]

Originally posted by motorman4life
They have lanes where there is a wall or raised barrier and you cannot get out of the lane for 2 or 3 exits. In some places they have dots and two sets of double yellow lines. In both cases, there are signs prohibiting you from going into or out of the lanes until there is a posted opening. Stiff fines for crossing over a double-double.

This makes them express lanes.

I do miss those. You get fewer people making a mad dash into the car pool lane every time they see a brake light up a head.

[Racer4life]

personally i think everyone should incorporate motorcycles in their lives that way there will never be traffic, well maybe one day as population grows, but it would nice for a while. too bad its a pipe dream

[Sprinklerhead]

Originally posted by Racer4life
personally i think everyone should incorporate motorcycles in their lives that way there will never be traffic, well maybe one day as population grows, but it would nice for a while. too bad its a pipe dream

And all those cheap parts for sale due to all the crashes...:love

[grandmastershake]

some people should not be allowed to drive. there should be an apptitude test to determine wheter or not you are capable of driving. some drivers i knowmake me wonder how they can even keep their basic life functions going with their current brain power. not to mention that they drive. problem is they rarely in accidents but rather the people avoiding a near miss from them seem to get into accidents swerving away.

and i think we need a annuall safety inspection on cars and bikes in Ca. like other states do. i fix cars for a living and i amazed at how some of these cars are being driven in their current state on unsafeness. i tell people that their brakes are metal to metal and should not be driven and they tell me" oh it's cool i'll bring it by next week i dont have time today." and we should "highway certify cars" also. not every car should be allowed on freeway. i see cars with bald tires launch onto freeway in excess speeds of 80MPH. i would ratrher spend an extra 40 bucks every smog test and know that my car and other cars are safe to drive.

just my lil mini rant i can go on and on about un safe vehicles. i see them all the time. and their owners refuse to fix them . show how much they dont care about thier lives and the lives of others. thats why at work we now check and change all the stop tail and turn lights for free (no charge for almost all of the bulbs) and people get mad that we do this to their cars. go figure. some people are stupid.

[Eisernkreuz]

Originally posted by motorman4life
In Germany, on the Autobahn for instance, they can drive much faster and have fewer accidents per capita. Why?

As I see it, there are 3 major facotrs:
1) Their highways are engineered for higher speeds. For the most part, ours are engineered for lower speeds. The design of the highway has as a significant impact on the designated speed limit.
2) They have different laws on passing. You cannot pass on the right and must move over to the right unless you are actively passing someone. The fast lane is for passing only. You pass and get back over to the right as soon as possible.
3) They generally don't have the congestion we have here.


1) Yep, most of West Europe (ie. the nanny states) have superb roads, redone several times a year. And it's not like when good ol' Caltrans comes out to fix something, they do it fast, good, and there's no bumps and dips and shit left in the road.

2) That campaign is called "Drive right." It's a play on words, meaning drive correctly, which means drive as far right as possible ;)

3) They don't have congestion? 82 million people (about a third to one fourth of the US population) crammed into an area slightly smaller than the state of Montana? Ummm, yeah...
They just have a far better public transit system, people don't commute as much as they do here, and since it costs about $1200 to get your driver's licence over there (as a new driver), and with far stricter driving tests, you cut out a significant portion of the population who can't afford it or is too retarded to drive.

Germany rocks! :teeth

[JayJ]

Well B Rock... I hate to say it, but Deaconblues was 100% right about the metering lights. Too often they are too close to the end of the freeway. Ya see, I love racing (and riding) SV's; however, when I'm not griding 6 gears with my left foot, I'm often griding thriteen gears with my right hand!

With a 435 HP, 80,000# International Eagle, I often barely make it up to freeway speed from those stupid lights. They are a decent idea, they just need more run on room. As noted earlier, big rigs are the slowest common denominator. I think the CalTrans dudes forget to plan for that. Hey look how screwed up the on ramps on Hwy 99 are! If they don't design the freeways for us big guys, we'll just have to squish ya when yer drivin' yer 'ol ladies minivan in our blind spot.

Another problem we have, especially in California (!) is that we have too many people here that haven't driven anything but a water buffalo prior to getting a drivers license!!! As Bob Carol says, we all perceive speed differently! Because the populous here is so diverse, we have a much harder time integrating on the freeway and the State is forced to use a split speed limit system. They do not have this problem in many other states. Hell, in Arizona I can wind my rig up to 75! I have to say it is wierd passing an Arizona trooper at that speed and not feeling like ya just did something wrong, even if it is legal. There would be a lot of squished immigrants (and some natives too) if we did that here!

[Dopesick]

Keep this in mind....

You have freeways like "101 - in palo alto". Where the LIMIT is 65 I believe? I've driven that section. It's HORRIBLE.

101 in Morgan Hill. Nice, new, smooth..... Speel limit 65.

Now I can see how 65 is appropriate for morgan hill, but it sure as hell isnt safe for the road conditions of 101 in palo alto.

The "surveys" need to be more often, and road repairs done quicker. TONS of accidents lately on the water loged section of 101 near 13th in san jose, and near The Alameda on 880 in SJ as well.

[Racer4life]

i always love it when there is new work done on say the 101hwy but never seems to get finished. then they post speed limits like 55mph and it is way too slow for the conditions when there are people doing 70+ on the unfinished construction. if there are workers working on the fwy thats one thing but to have it looking crappy and tell us to drive very slow through the undone unmaned work is ridiculous, especially if they take a year or 2 just to do the job.

another thing i hate about driving on the fwy is that there are way too many people trying to see what happens with accidents and cops giving tickets. what the hell!! why dont LEO's pull over rubberneckers and tell them to stop creating traffic hazards, i feel like im in an obstacle course everytime there is a car that has pulled onto the shoulder cause everyone needs to stop and stare. way dangerous, can we tell people that they will be cited if they are creating these stupid pointless conditions? then maybe do something about it too? traffic would flow a hell of alot better if people would worry more about their own driving instead of trying to see if there is some blood on the road next to a crash.

there should be signs up and down the fwy saying "do not try and observe accidents or you will get a $200 fine, pay attention to the road ahead" or something along those lines. kinda like the no littering signs.

[torogi]

My thoughts are these:

Lane camping should not be allowed on the leftmost lane, no matter what speed you are going.

A lot of backlog happens when some "righteous" person camps out on the leftmost lane because he is going the speed limit. This promotes dangerous actions by people who want to pass and are forced to overtake on the right lane. This is very unsafe.

The leftmost lane should be designated as passing lane only and should have a higher speed limit.

Persons who are caught 'camping out' on the leftmost lane should be ticketed and penalized with fines MUCH HIGHER THAN SPEEDING.

Just my .02

[b.rock]

Originally posted by JayJ
Well B Rock... I hate to say it, but Deaconblues was 100% right about the metering lights. Too often they are too close to the end of the freeway. Ya see, I love racing (and riding) SV's; however, when I'm not griding 6 gears with my left foot, I'm often griding thriteen gears with my right hand!

With a 435 HP, 80,000# International Eagle, I often barely make it up to freeway speed from those stupid lights. They are a decent idea, they just need more run on room. As noted earlier, big rigs are the slowest common denominator. I think the CalTrans dudes forget to plan for that. Hey look how screwed up the on ramps on Hwy 99 are! If they don't design the freeways for us big guys, we'll just have to squish ya when yer drivin' yer 'ol ladies minivan in our blind spot.
Hey, if you made it to freeway speed barely then they worked perfectly, right? :laughing
I understand the complaint, I'm just saying that moving them back is going to cause a complete failure in nearly all local intersections with ramp terminii around here. If a longer run-up can be provided then by all means it should be done. I wouldn't disagree with that at all.
Which on-ramps on 99? I try to avoid there like the plague so I can't recall it all. But the 99 is an older, less standard freeway than say I-5. A lot of places have deficient parts. If it makes you feel better, we do design for trucks, nearly exclusively. After all the fact that an 18-wheeler does 10 000 times the damage to the road that a car does means we have to! :cool Ah, good ol' ESAL (equivilent single axle loads) :nerd

[b.rock]

Originally posted by torogi
My thoughts are these:

Lane camping should not be allowed on the leftmost lane, no matter what speed you are going.

A lot of backlog happens when some "righteous" person camps out on the leftmost lane because he is going the speed limit. This promotes dangerous actions by people who want to pass and are forced to overtake on the right lane. This is very unsafe.

The leftmost lane should be designated as passing lane only and should have a higher speed limit.

Persons who are caught 'camping out' on the leftmost lane should be ticketed and penalized with fines MUCH HIGHER THAN SPEEDING.

Just my .02
I don't drive in the left lane unless I'm passing (or HOV). But:
1. During congestion that cuts the capacity in half on 2-lane each direction freeways.
2. The dangerous action is prompted by none, in my personal belief. If someone ahead of me is driving the speed limit on a road w/ a DY, for example, I suck it up and drive or ride the right speed. I don't go passing on the shoulder, around curves, etc. That would be my own dangerous action.
3. Higher speed limits are not going to happen like that as a rule. Trucks pass too, and a closing speed of 30 mph or whatever really sucks. Plus these facilities are only designed for a certain speed. Whether you can do it or not, if someone crashes, the state will not want to be on the hook for that.
I wouldn't condone people enforcing the speed limit like that (I sure don't) and I use the left lane for passing only as a rule, but I have to say that's probably not going to happen. :teeth
I need to stop answering the LEO questions. I don't think anyone wants a highway design thread. ;)

[torogi]

b.rock,
Those are good points to be considered.

However, more often than not, I always encounter campers on the leftmost lane going the speed limit or way less when the slower lanes are wide open. What people do not adhere to is the 'Slower Traffic Keep Right' rule.

This becomes more dangerous in a sense because when people can pass at both left and right lanes, it becomes unpredictable and chaotic. If people are trained to pass only on the left side, this becomes orderly and systematic.

Of course this doesn't mean that one should pass on shoulders or double yellow zones, specially on single lane roads. In those cases, we all have to suck it up and follow the pace at which the car ahead is going.

On double lane roads however, i still think that the left lane should be designated passing lane instead of weaving from lane to lane because a slower car can't stay on the slower lane.

I did spend some time in Europe (Germany, Austria and Switzerland) and passing on the left lane rule is quite effective, even in congested hours. In those cases when traffic is congested, you just follow the pace on the leftmost lane and then go back in the slower lane if traffic becomes lighter and there is an opening on the slower lane.

Whether you drive a truck, bus, car or bike and i agree they all need to pass at some point or another. In this scheme, wouldn't it be so much easier if the left lane were open for them to pass and they could simply go back to the slower lane once they are done passing?

Lastly, have you ever encountered 2 cars going about the same speed (both left and right lane) and effectively blocking all cars wishing to pass? I mean the road ahead is wide open but the car camping on the fast lane is blocking and creating a backlog because he refuses to switch to the slower lane. That does not make sense at all. :)

[b.rock]

Okay so you didn't mean overtly dangerous. More like that passing someone driving in the #1 lane in say the #2 of 3 lanes is dangerous. Eh, I'm not a big fan either. Yet that's still a passing lane for people passing other people in the #3 lane. Ideally there would be a gradation of speed from left to right but it's not that practical all the time. Not from a legal standpoint but a drivers standpoint. I know I drive that way, but I don't think enough people do.
I generally do the lights flashing bit to let people know I'd like to pass on somewhere like I-5 w/ two lanes. I don't ride their ass and incessantly flash or anything, but as I come up, if they don't move and I'm going faster (or would like to), I will flash the brights real quick. I know I prefer have someone do that to me than pass around on the right. If they don't move, fuck them then. :D People who refuse to move are not as bad as the assholes who jump queues to pass and so on, but they still suck. No argument from me at all.

[JayJ]

B Rock asked which part of 99. I'd say most of it, but especially from Sac to Stockton. A driver really needs to be on their toes. I will almost always shoot over to i-5 'cause the better design is eaiser on the brain. (e.g. less stress.)

[Sprinklerhead]

Up in Oregon they have signs that say left lane for passing only. In CA we get too many people that just park it in the fast lane and don't notice when they have a line of cars behind them that are having to pass on the right as traffic allows.

[b.rock]

Yeah 99 does suck. Love all those depressed freeway sections diving under the local streets. At least it's slightly more interesting. Such scenic desinations as Lodi and Bakersfield await you! :laughing
I'm curious how the traffic on say their I-5 compares to ours, especially regarding operations with that system. And trucks. All the trucks on 99 or 5 pretty much mean passenger cars are passing someone half the time.

[JayJ]

From a trucker's standpoint, we can get away with rolling 62 MPH and the CHP will drive right on bye. In the Bay, I set the cruise at no more than 60 when I'm not in traffic. Due to the on-ramps, many truckers have to be in the second lane from the right. The far right lane is just too much drama. (60, down to 50, back to 60, OMG down to 40, back to 60, etc.....)

I-5 is well designed with plenty of real estate to set up adequate on ramps. Running the length of I-5 in traffic can be tough. Most the time the big trucks can hang out in the #2 lane just fine, but some company drivers are limited to 61 while other owner-ops are behind the 8 ball (sometimes literally!) This delta, combined with exaustion, often leads to last minute lane chages. I tend to wait my turn. I'll drive 55 a mile or so while waiting for a clearing. Whence it's my time, it may take another mile or so to pass the trucks on the right if there are a lot of them.

[Dopesick]

Originally posted by torogi
b.rock,
Those are good points to be considered.

However, more often than not, I always encounter campers on the leftmost lane going the speed limit or way less when the slower lanes are wide open. What people do not adhere to is the 'Slower Traffic Keep Right' rule.


Great someone posses the question. IS the carpool (HOV) lane applicable to this law? What are the limits and what is the "fine" for not basically having courtesy to fellow drivers ? I'm thinking "obstructing the flow of trafic" ?

Originally posted by JayJ
From a trucker's standpoint, we can get away with rolling 62 MPH and the CHP will drive right on bye. In the Bay, I set the cruise at no more than 60 when I'm not in traffic. Due to the on-ramps, many truckers have to be in the second lane from the right. The far right lane is just too much drama. (60, down to 50, back to 60, OMG down to 40, back to 60, etc.....)


What about the damn "Bobtail" or "Box vans". Even if "C Class" are they roped into the "Furthest most right lane" ? If not they should... Today I found myself sitting behind an asshat in a boxvan doing 64 mph in the #2 lane durring carpool hours... :finger

[JayJ]

Box vans (even class C) are commercial vehicles and must remain in the right two lanes of any freeway (just like the 18 wheelers.) It is for this reason that it is illegal for box vans to drive in the carpool lane, but a lot of guys don't know that. Spread the word....

And just so ya know Dopesick, my comments about big rig lane selection were based on a typical 4 lane highway in the Bay Area, not a 2 laner out in BFE.

[Dopesick]

Originally posted by JayJ
Box vans (even class C) are commercial vehicles and must remain in the right two lanes of any freeway (just like the 18 wheelers.) It is for this reason that it is illegal for box vans to drive in the carpool lane, but a lot of guys don't know that. Spread the word....

And just so ya know Dopesick, my comments about big rig lane selection were based on a typical 4 lane highway in the Bay Area, not a 2 laner out in BFE.

Thats what I thought. I drove a "Class C" Freightliner FL60 service rig. I NEVER drove out of the furthest most right lane, other then to pass. I figured I was just being polite, but thought as well it is a commercial truck (had a DOT and CA numbers on it) so I was "supposed" to play by truck laws.

As were my comments as well... On a 2 lane I can see short rolls in the #1 as A-OK every once in a while.. But to hog up #1 or #2 durring commute hours of a 4 lane.. :finger

[Eisernkreuz]

Originally posted by SprinklerHead
Up in Oregon they have signs that say left lane for passing only. In CA we get too many people that just park it in the fast lane and don't notice when they have a line of cars behind them that are having to pass on the right as traffic allows.

apply horn :p

[Racer4life]

why is it people dont understand the blink your brights at them and that means they need to move over and let you through?? i do this when people are going way slow even slower than the lane next to them, here and there they move but alot of times they dont realize what this means. there should be alot more talk about this when you get your license so people dont have to pass on the right.