Today’s Auptopian Asks query is “what’s the dumbest law,” instead of “name a dumb law,” because lawbooks are full of all manner of peabrained rules and regulations when it comes to anything and everything automobiles. Some are intelligent enough conceptually speaking, but become silly in execution or enforcement; others are just patently dumb from ding to dong.
In the ding to dong category, I nominate the NHTSA’s 1979 call for speedometers to highlight the 55mph position on the dial and cease providing any indication for speeds over 85mph. As the national speed limit at the time was 55mph, having some kind of emphasis for that annoyingly low velocity wasn’t the worst idea, and came at the expense of nothing beyond a little extra paint (or, in the case of the Mustang SVO speedo below, a different paint color – an orange tick at 55mph instead of white).
Spacer
But the 85mph maximum as some kind of safeguard against drivers “seeing what she can do” because whatever she can do beyond 85mph won’t be displayed? Well, that’s just silly. I assure you, many drivers still flat-footed the right pedal until the engine topped out, no matter the speedometer’s ability to keep counting the miles per hour. And in some cases – again with the SVO cluster above – one could still see how fast they were traveling as the needle swung past 85 into unlabeled but nonethless clearly marked speed units.
I’m confident 85mph-max speedometers led to more occurrences of speeding than they did instances where the tactic slowed drivers down. Ever been blithely sailing down the interstate at 95mph, pacing traffic, only to have your partner (if not yourself) glance at the speedo and say “whoa, better slow down”? That doesn’t happen when the needle pins at 85mph. “Do I know how fast I was going, officer? Honestly, I don’t. Not past 85, anyway.”
Your turn: What’s The Dumbest Automotive Law or Regulation?
Top graphic images: Bring a Trailer
I live in North Carolina, and for reasons I honestly don’t entirely understand, we often end up with a Democratic governor and a Republican state legislature. This often leads to some …rather awkward… laws and regulations.
Take, for example, my state’s current legislation on mopeds.
To be fair, this was enacted during a recent time when both legislature and governor were Republican — specifically Pat McCrory, who was… well, to call him controversial is a bit of a sizable understatement. Most of us, at least as I see and hear it, outright call his election what it was: Duke Power bought the election, and the state for four years, specifically to absorb Progress Energy and become the largest municipal energy company in the nation. There are a few apologists, but not many, and most are a bit lukewarm, even then.
Apparently it’s been a problem in the state for some time, that repeat DUI offenders who have their licenses taken away permanently, will often simply purchase a moped and keep on DUIing.
In North Carolina, a two-or-three wheeled vehicle “with a step-through architecture” (meaning, not full doors, and not fully enclosed), that also has bicycle-style pedals and could at least sort of be propelled by them, with an engine that is 50cc or smaller in displacement, and is speed-limited to a maximum of 30mph on the straightaway (technically there’s a weight-limit there, but in practice it’s just a raw speed-governor) with “no external shifting device” (i.e., no shift lever/pedal/etc, so GY6-style-CVT-only) is classified as a moped, and mopeds are not considered “motor vehicles” for the purposes of state law, so, up until this point, they were legally available to use on anything up to and including a highway with no on-ramps or off-ramps (public roadways/etc and highways that are not “access-controlled highways”) with no license, no title, no registration, and no insurance. That was literally the point — as long as you were at least IIRC 14 (I might be wrong about the age bit) you could ride a moped, even if you couldn’t ride anything else.
The obvious, smart way to fix the DUI problem would be to simply amend the existing DUI legislation to also apply to mopeds — if you had a previous DUI conviction that took away your license, and you DUIed one more time on a moped, you were legally barred from anything other than bicycles, eBikes, and public transportation from then on.
But, if they’d done that, I’d not be writing this. So what did they do?
They [bleep]ing attacked the mopeds.
I’m not kidding. It’s the absolute dumbest thing, and I’m one of those awful people that thinks EVs are greenwashing at best and most certainly Not The Answer… and who thinks of nothing other than OG Lara Croft’s chest whenever I see a Cybertruck. (In my defense, it’s a large, low-poly wedge, what do you expect? 😛 ) Oh, and the eBike legislation is incredibly dumb here, too.
But, sure enough, in North Carolina, you now need to register and insure your moped! which, of course, completely undermines the market for those machines. There’s literally no point, when you can save up just a few hundred bucks more and get a proper scooter — or, if you’re uninsurable because of a DUI, you’re still out in the cold on an eBike or whatever.
“…But, sure enough, in North Carolina, you now need to register and insure your moped!…”
How is something that goes to 30mph and not a 35lb bicycle supposed to not be insured and registered ?
It’s a deadly weapon. A 120lb moped with a 150lb person on it, at 30mph, hits you the same as if you had jumped on concrete from the 4th floor.
And yes, electric bikes that go close in weight and speed should be registered and insured too. Lisa Banes died hit by an electric scooter. Those things weigh a ton and are fast enough to do real harm.
Drivers license tests are too damn easy. I know this isn’t a traffic law per se, and I know my ideas would cost too much and some people would never get to drive here, but still. In the UK, my father failed his test six times, yes six. Why? He had terrible vision, and struggled with depth perception. Damn right he should be failed. He could pass the eye chart test, but struggled with following distance etc.
Most people have no idea what the rules of the road are, make it up as they go and are just selfish. And I’ll own this now, I am a selfish bastard at times as well. No doubt. Re-test every five years. At least written, and make it hard. In WA state I was able to do both auto and MC written tests in one 30 minute block, passed with a 100%. The lady at the counter was shocked, I was like, any monkey can pass the test.
Finally, why are brand new drivers of both cars and mc able to just buy whatever stupidly over-powered car or bike they can afford?
Full disclosure: Engineer. Ypu speak the truth, Cassandra. One, all drivers should be required to pass a challenging written test, say, every 8 years (my state allows renewal for four or eight years; it costs the same, so why visit MVD twice?) not just as a refresher course on rules of the road (two vehicles arrive at a 4 way stop simultaneously; driver on the right has right of way: signal when changing lanes: secure your load) but also as education on new traffic control systems. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) used by DOT, state and local government, constantly updates changes in traffic signals, signs, lane striping, etc. Many veteran drivers have no understanding of the flashing yellow arrow, rules of the roundabout, puppy tracks, pedestrian crossing signals, reverse lane interchanges, and so on, because these devices/rules did not exist when they first took their driver’s exam. Two: There should be progressive licensing for powerful vehicles. I taught my kiddo to ride a motorcycle, then they took a class in MC safety as well. They got their endorsement, and they respect their skill limits, because I allowed them to make rookie mistakes in a safe and controlled environment. I got my license at 15. Thankfully it was in the 1980s, where an affordable used car for a teen was from the malaise era (my first car was a 1977 Ford Maverick 4 door, 250 six, 3 on the tree, 80 hp on tap), so I wasn’t able to achieve extra legal velocities without extreme effort. I should not have been allowed behind the wheel of any vehicle without supervision, but at that time, 15 was minimum age for a full, unrestricted license. My father started to teach me how to drive when I was 12, and even though I passed all of the exams of the driver’s education class (that I had to earn money to pay for), I was not allowed to apply for my license until I could back up a trailer and start on a hill in a stick shift without stalling or losing traction. I applied the same rules to my kiddo, and I feel comfortable riding in the passenger seat with them driving my 350 hp truck. Lastly, my father only had one eye (lost in the Korean War), and he had a restriction on his driver’s license requiring glasses, even though he got his license at 14(!!!) in 1944. All professionals who are licensed to practice (land surveyors, engineers, realtors, attorneys, medical professionals) are required to earn Continuing Education Units to keep current in their vocation. Every driver engages in their vocation when they pull onto a public road, so why not have continuing education so that everyone continues to hone their skills, improving the driving experience for everyone?
Years ago here in our red state I went for my motorcycle license b/c I had failed to notice they did not add it when I renewed. I was between motorcycles. I had to do the parking lot test on a 150cc or larger and I’d be legal on any motorcycle. I took it on a vintage Vespa I own. 150cc. I was then legal to ride even sport bikes or heavy touring bikes!
Also there was a teen at the DMV that had just.failed.the written portion of the test for the 12th time. She was.a.pretty.girl who perhaps she could whine her way into a pass?
A lot has already been said about dash and guage lighting that remains on, even if one’s headlights are not active after dusk.
To that, I will add the draconian US headlight regulations that have suppressed proven matrix lighting technology stateside. As headlights get brighter and whiter, glare has become a real issue at night. The matrix beam technology significantly reduces that for other drivers in the beam path. The real kicker is that many European cars are already equipped with this advanced lighting hardware, but the system is disabled in the US market software programming.
Or just ban overly bright LED headlights so you’re not blinding everyone else who is on the road. As if replacement headlights on newer car aren’t expensive enough.
The dumbest one I can think of is Denver area emissions laws. To be clear, I’m fine with emissions laws as I enjoy breathing clean air, and if the law was just about tail pipe emissions I would have no issues with it, give me a number and I’ll make sure my vehicle meets it. That’s not what they chose to do. First of all the “visual inspection” has to be passed, so in other words all the malaise era junk that didn’t work worth a damn in the first place has to be there or it fails, regardless of actual emissions. Second, when all that garbage inevitably fails to clean up emissions enough to pass, if you then spend about $800 on repairs, and it still doesn’t pass, they just give you a waiver that you tried and your weezy junk can be on the road. So install a late model EFI motor in your 80s Impala SS, automatic fail, but you can cruise your single digit mpg, smog belching ride all day as long as you made an attempt to fix it. Absolute idiocy.
This. California has the same problem. If it were just about emissions, we’d have a tailpipe number that cars have to meet for a given year. If you’re above that you fail, at or below you pass. That’s how NJ was when I was growing up. Simple, and yeah, sometimes we’d tune for emissions, but California decided, nope, we don’t want anyone end-running the emissions testing, so, only stock vehicles, no matter how bad, can pass. I mean, seriously. I could go on, but I won’t.
You can turn your car in California and other CARB states – you just need to use CARB certified parts.
Yes, you’re right, and that CARB certification is expensive and doesn’t help if you have a post 1975 car that has no carb certified workarounds for crappy late 70’s and 80’s emissions systems that have long gone out of parts production. Which is how the law was designed.
Actually – certification isn’t’ expensive when considering the cost to develop and tool a product. I know as I’ve actually done it.
As to actually finding parts for cars from the malaise era – yes, that can be hard because there aren’t enough cars out there to make it worthwhile for a company to make the product unless it is a popular vehicle. Ford Fox Body – CARB parts galore. 1985 Escort – are there still even any of those on the road?
I vote for the fasten seatbelt bonging when you turn on the ignition. I’d been driving for years before I read an owners manual and learned what that was for. I always get in, start the engine, and then put on my seatbelt. I was quite surprised that if you put on the seat belt *before* you start the engine, it doesn’t bong at you.
The one that has never made sense to me, is that the President can no longer drive a car, even after leaving elected office!
President or vice president, current or former: it doesn’t matter. None is allowed to drive a car on a public road.
The policy is enforced by the Secret Service. If a president wants to motor around, they have to do it as a passenger while an agent trained in evasive maneuvers is behind the steering wheel.
It’s really the only thing stopping me from running for President.
Virginia/D.C. being the only place where radar detectors are illegal. It’s never going away because radar detectors are now less effective than Waze. Not advocating speeding, but the law made things nuts in Virginia. Police started going crazy buying radar detector detectors and radar detector companies started trying to add features that made them less detectable, all leading to make a bunch of people spend more money than the stupid speeding tickets would have cost.
back in the 80s, I knew a guy who hacked his radar detector so that they sensor was hidden in his grill, but the alarm and head unit where below the dash. This allowed him to, …go under the radar, when driving in VA. Everyone else I knew tried to hide theirs by routing the power cable through bandanas hanging from their mirror and mounting it at the top of their windshield… that was less stealth, and probably drew more attention from the cops.
Also, some of my less smarter friends thought they could put aluminum foil and steel wool pads in their hubcaps to ‘confuse’ the radar.
A friend (back in the early 1990’s) mounted his behind his dashboard and lined it up so that his parking brake light would come on if it detected a speed trap. I think he still got caught with it.
Agreed, police send a bunch of radio waves or laser light at you but you’re not allowed to use a device to detect it? Seems like their unwanted emissions should be more illegal than me detecting it.
My pet peeve is SUVs and trucks being excluded from passenger car window tint regulations. Driving around 40 years ago, yeah sure, there were some panel vans and other big opaque rolling bricks, but mostly you could see through (front-to-back or side-to-side) other vehicles, providing more awareness of what’s going on around you. These days approximately everyone is driving SUVs or 4-door pickups with limo tint from the second row back. Looking around in traffic you mostly can’t see what’s going on beyond the neighboring vehicle.
Here’s one that I haven’t seen yet: The mandate that all brake fluid has to be amber in color. Goodbye Ate Super Blue! Sure, you can still get the same formulation, but to get the blue/red stuff, you have to source it from Canada. So much easier to change the brake fluid.
When the Viper was introduced, I always thought it was hilarious when Car and Driver pointed out that it was required by federal law to have door locks despite not having outside door handles, roll up windows, or even anything that could reasonably be called a roof.
The entire FMVSS regulations that were politically motivated rather than written from the engineering perspectives as ECE WP.29, Australian Design Rules (ADR), and a certain regulations in some countries. We don’t need lot of dumb regulations that were rescinded again and again.
I can go on and on, but you get the idea.
FMVSS is largely responsible for the shitty range of body types, models, engines, and gearboxes that Americans have to make do with as compared to Australia (despite tinier market). Why? Reportedly, it cost about $40 million to have the vehicle certified for the US market. So, the manufacturers cannot always amortise the cost quickly and must choose what they think would sell well in the US. Thus, tiny choices of brown station wagons with diesel engines.
I have seen a report in the early 2000s where it costs about $2,000 per vehicle to engineer specifically for the US regulations. Yet, thanks to the link rot: I couldn’t access it anymore.
This and another idiotic federal law, Motor Vehicle Information and Cost-Saving Act of 1972. This law allows the manufacturers to demand the proof that any safety regulation would save lives and cost; leading to ten-plus years of battle to mandate the airbags. What’s shocking is that the first generation airbags massively failed this cost-saving act. Ford invoked this law to force NHTSA in rescinding the mandatory coating against UV radiation that causes yellowing and cloudiness of the polycarbonate lens because it would cost fifty cents per vehicle more. So, people are stuck with jaundiced and cataracted headlamps…thanks, Ford.
I have said again and again that United States should just swallow its fucking pride and start harmonising its regulations with the international regulations. Ironically, United States is a member of the WP.29 forum but refuses to implement any of those regulations except for the headlamp with sharp horizontal cut-off in 1991. Australia and United States are so much similar in geography and such, yet Australia has implemented many of WP.29 regulations into its ADR. So, no reason to claim “oh, everything is so different here in the United States!”
Counterpoint: All of this equates to increased protectionism of domestic brands.
(at the expense of exports)
FMVSS allowed motorized and door mounted seatbelts as an optional way to follow the regulations for passive restraints systems. It was quickly amended to specifically require airbags instead of those smartassed “solutions” car makers of all sorts came up with instead, and was implemented well over a decade before it was required in the EU.
It’s also not true that “FMVSS is largely to blame” for why the American market is homogenized for engine and transmissions. FMVSS has always been happy to give out waivers for lower volume cars for certain regulations, which is basically the only reason Lotus was able to stay in the US market after the Esprit ran its course. Because the EPA does not, *emissions* regulations is the reason for that, specifically how Europe basically didn’t have any until 2000 when they had been heavily regulated in the US from the 1970s; and now that it is in Europe as well you’re seeing the exact same kind of one size fits all approach to drivetrains that the US has had for decades.
Forcing drivers in the left lane observing the posted speed limit to yield to speeders because those speeders might have a tantrum.
What is the point of multiple lanes if traffic is unable to move at different speeds?
That’s why it’s law (in my Province, anyways) “Keep right, except to pass”. It’s really that simple. God forbid someone have to give steering input on a highway to aid traffic flow.
Why indeed? By that law if the right lane is moving at the speed limit the left lane may as well not exist for you except to make a left turn.
“God forbid someone have to give steering input on a highway to aid traffic flow.”
Counterpoint: God forbid someone follow the speed limit to aid traffic safety AND traffic flow.
The problem is that, historically, it is neither safer nor more efficient. “Go with the flow, within reason” is considered the safest method.
This is where road design comes into play. People will drive whatever speed they are comfortable on a given stretch of road. There’s an 80 zone in my city that pretty much everyone does 70ish in. Why? Because they road design makes 80 or above feel uncomfortable.
The OPP have also said publicly, on multiple occasions, that you are more of a hazard by blocking the flow, and can be ticketed for such. Even if you’re driving the limit.
“The problem is that, historically, it is neither safer nor more efficient. “Go with the flow, within reason” is considered the safest method.”
I think if that were true there would be no reason for absolute speed limits at all would there? Just get rid of all speed limit signs and let the fastest driver set the prime facie pace for everyone. See what happens.
“People will drive whatever speed they are comfortable on a given stretch of road. There’s an 80 zone in my city that pretty much everyone does 70ish in. Why? Because they road design makes 80 or above feel uncomfortable.”
That is a completely different situation. Those folks should use the right lane to yield to folks who do want to drive the speed limit and have the legal privilege to do so. My beef is with speeders who have no such legal privilege. Their speeding is what’s causing any dangerous gradients, not folks driving the speed limit.
By blocking the flow of traffic, you are creating a hazard. This is one of the most common causes of accidents on two-lane roads.
Someone is driving below the normal flow speed for a stretch of road, so cars behind take increasingly greater risks in overtaking.
If you’re cruising along and you’ve amassed 10 cars bumper to bumper behind you, with empty road ahead of you, then you ARE the hazard.
You don’t drive in a vacuum. It’s a shared space, and shared spaces always operate best with some compromise from everyone involved.
No its not a vacuum. The speeder is sharing space with someone who is driving the speed limit. In that situation the speeder is not only speeding they are driving too fast for conditions.
“If you’re cruising along and you’ve amassed 10 cars bumper to bumper behind you, with empty road ahead of you, then you ARE the hazard”
How so? Traffic is moving in an orderly manner at the speed limit is the ideal. The only possible hazards would be solely from impatient speeders.
You need to read about the 85 percentile rule. Basically setting the speed limit at the speed 85% of vehicles drive if there were no traffic is the safest speed. “Effects of Raising and Lowering Speed Limits” by the Federal Highway Association showed raising speed limits decreased or had no negative impact on accidents by getting closer to the 85th percentile. Other studies have shown drivers going 10+ MPH lower than the average speed of other drivers were in more accidents.
You have to realize speed limits aren’t always set by road engineers. If you want people to drive slower the speed limit isn’t the determining factor. You have to engineer the roads so that the 85 percentile speed is lower. If when you’re camped out in the left lane you’re going below that 85 percentile speed you’re not making driving safer. If you’re going 10MPH lower than that speed you’re greatly increasing your risk of an accident.
So raise speed limits. My whole point is speed limit adherents shouldn’t be required to yield to speeders.
With higher speed limits most speeders aren’t speeding any more and folks who want to drive slower than the new higher speed limit lose their privilege to the left lane.
Boom! Problem solved. New problems created but those are for others to solve.
But you ARE required. It’s literally law to not impede traffic flow in the left lane. So if you’re such a stickler for the law, follow that one too. Otherwise you’re just a hypocrite that decided one road law is more important than another.
Again that is NOT the case for all states including my state of California. Speed limit followers are NOT required by law to yield to speeders despite what some ill informed online sources like MIT might think.
Yes, in many places the speed limit should be raised.
Look you can be right or you can be safe. If you are in the left lane and going well below the 85th percentile speed you are making those and others around you more likely to have an accident. You can defend your action as law abiding, but you can’t defend it as safer, which you did above.
you are making those and others around you more likely to have an accident
No. Its the speeders who are making accidents more likely by speeding AND driving too fast for conditions e.g. the presence of slower traffic. Speeders are the ones whom shoulder the full blame (and ideally all fiscal liability) for anything that happens. Insisting speed limit followers to yield to these jack offs only increases the opinion of speeders that speeding is an entitlement. It is not. These laws are an insult to anyone who thinks the law should be observed. They also prove bad behavior is rewarded, not punished. Perhaps speed limit followers should have their own dangerous traffic tantrums. Clearly the law in some states is into giving tantrum throwers what they want.
“No. Its the speeders who are making accidents more likely by speeding”
You are confusing a perfect world with reality. The speed limit should be set at the 85th percentile, driver’s should follow the speed limit. However, research has shown time and time again speed limits are often set too low and drivers ignore speed limits that are too low. You may not like that we don’t live in a perfect world, but by driving in the left lane and not letting faster drivers pass you are making the roads less safe for yourself and others.
I’m not someone who owns a fast car. Both my cars are SLOW. 0-60 > 10 seconds. I am not someone who drives fast. I rarely go over 75mph. If I’m in the left lane it’s to pass. That’s it, because real world data proves it’s safer.
Even your comment above says we should raise the speed limits. Your acknowledging that a perfect world is very far from reality. You mentioned driving conditions and driving appropriately for them. Getting out of the left lane is that. The conditions are that we have speed limits too low for road design causing most drivers to ignore them. Meaning someone going the speed limit is well below the 85th percentile and is causing a greater risk of accidents.
If you can find some research to back up your assertion that driving much slower than the flow of traffic is somehow safer I’ll gladly consider it. Otherwise this is my last comment.
“If you can find some research to back up your assertion that driving much slower than the flow of traffic is somehow safer I’ll gladly consider it.”
OK
“What is the effect of speed differences?
In addition to absolute speeds, the speed differences between vehicles also have an effect on the crash rate. This effect is studied in two ways. The first type of studies are those that compare the crash rates between roads that have a large speed variance (large differences in vehicle speeds
during a 24 hour period) and roads that have a small speed variance. These studies mostly conclude that roads with a large speed variance are less safe (Aarts & Van Schagen, 2006).
The second type of studies are those that concentrate on the speed differences between the individual vehicles that were involved in a crash and all the other vehicles. The first studies of this type were conducted in the United States in the 1950s and 1960s, e.g. Solomon (1964). These studies always found a U-curve: the slower or faster a car drives compared with most of the vehicles on that road, the
more the risk of being involved in a crash increased. However, more recent studies, especially those carried out in Australia (e.g. Kloeden et al., 1997; 2001; 2002) that used more modern measuring instruments and used a more accurate research design, reached a different conclusion. They still indicate that vehicles that drive faster than average on that road have a higher crash rate; vehicles
that drive slower, however, were found not to have an increased risk (Figure 3
Conclusion
The exact relation between crashes and speed depends on a large number of factors. In general however, the relation is very clear and has been shown in a large number of studies: the higher the speed, the greater the probability of a crash. At the same percentage increase in speed, the crash rate on rural roads increases more than the crash rate on urban roads. The crash rate is also higher for an
individual vehicle that drives faster than the other traffic on that road.
As the speed increases, the injury severity in crashes also increases, for the driver who is responsible for the crash occurring as well as for the collision opponent. The mass and vulnerability of the vehicles/road users who are involved also plays a role. In crashes between a lighter and a heavier vehicle the occupants of the lighter vehicle are generally worse off than the occupants of the heavier
vehicle. More so this is the case for pedestrians, cyclists and moped riders in crashes with (much) heavier motor vehicles.
https://www.littlerock.gov/media/2484/the-relation-between-speed-and-crashes.pdf
Main points being:
1) These studies mostly conclude that roads with a large speed variance are less safe
No surprise here
2) vehicles that drive faster than average on that road have a higher crash rate; vehicles that drive slower, however, were found not to have an increased risk
So our hero driving the speed limit is not responsible for the greater risks of higher speed gradients. Only the dastardly speeder is.
3) As the speed increases, the injury severity in crashes also increases, for the driver who is responsible for the crash occurring as well as for the collision opponent.
Higher speed collisions tend to yield greater consequenses. in other words speed kills. So here again the slower driver is the safer driver
This is a lost cause. All left lane hogs think they are the equivalent of the one good guy with a gun, but I’ve seen this play out with this user before and they are *particularly* insistent that they are the arbiter of which traffic laws they are allowed to enforce on behalf of police and not others.
OK Leadfoot.
Until you get a badge your opinion of what traffic laws you’re allowed to ignore and what ones you’re allowed to enforce on others is irrelevant.
Same applies to you. So don’t speed.
I’ve given no statement about speeding whatsoever, nevermind whether it is a more “serious” offense than someone illegally parking their ass in the left lane to enforce speed limits on others. You’re the one preaching that you are allowed to determine what traffic laws you are have to follow so long as you’re keeping other people from breaking the law.
And, again, since you don’t seem to have a badge, your opinion on which traffic laws are more important than others is irrelevant. Get the hell out of the left lane and let the people whose job it is to enforce traffic laws do it.
The fact you refer to someone driving the speed limit as “illegally parking” makes it clear you are making a pro-speeder statement.
“You’re the one preaching that you are allowed to determine what traffic laws you are have to follow so long as you’re keeping other people from breaking the law.”
Not true Scarecrow. This is what I said:
“Forcing drivers in the left lane observing the posted speed limit to yield to speeders because those speeders might have a tantrum”
This is not about “teaching speeders a lesson”. That is a lost cause which only exists in your mind.
This is about bad laws which force people driving the speed limit to enable speeders because speeders might have short fuses.
No it’s about being able to pass. Why are you so determined to be in the left lane anyway? It’s for passing, if you aren’t passing, get on the right. The speed is irrelevant. If you aren’t going faster than the cars in the right lane, you should be in the right lane.
Stop using speeders an excuse for you being a entitled asshat. Don’t worry about what they’re doing, don’t be in a lane you don’t need to be in.
You are not entitled to be in the lane just because it’s there, the lane is there for passing.
If you can’t handle that, get off the road.
If your state doesn’t have that law, your state is stupid. It’s common courtesy.
“No it’s about being able to pass”
No it is not. In the scenario I painted you are not allowed to pass by law in any state regardless of the lane the person ahead of you is in. That fact alone invalidates your point.
“Why are you so determined to be in the left lane anyway?”
Because its the safest, smoothest lane to travel in. It’s also sometimes the carpool lane which makes this whole issue even worse.
Furthermore a person driving the speed limit in the left lane denies no-one the full legal use of that lane. Drivers are only allowed to go as fast as the posted speed limit whether passing or travelling.
Speeders OTOH DO deny speed limit followers the use of that lane. That is anything but “common courtesy”.
Now I get to ask you: something WHY are you arguing for speeders? Why do you think the left lane should be reserved for speeders? Because that is EXACTLY the argument you are making.
“You are not entitled to be in the lane just because it’s there”
Wrong. According to the CHP in my state of California a driver IS allowed to be in the left lane with or without passing as long as they are driving the speed limit regardless of whether anyone is behind them. See my reply to Jb996 below for the quotes.
Because basically EVERYONE speeds. We’re not talking about 150mph here, we’re talking about 5-10 over or so. Not people driving dangerously fast, and certainly not driving illegally in the carpool lane. As other people have told you, people drive the speed they feel is safe, not the speed some bureaucratic dipshit decided would bring in the most ticket revenue. Nor speed limits that haven’t been updated in 50 years despite multiple re-pavings since then and vastly safer cars.
Your self-righteousness doesn’t change the fact everyone is speeding anyway, and you are impeding traffic. You can argue all you want about how fast you think you should go, but too fucking bad, that’s the society we live in. You aren’t gonna change it. Adapt or get off the road.
If you are going slower than average traffic in the left lane, you are an asshole. You aren’t making a statement, you’re just being annoying. Ok you think all speeders are assholes, you also being an asshole doesn’t make the situation better.
If you can’t handle driving the same speed everybody else is, time to turn in your license. Or, ya know, just get over and deal with a few extra bumps, it’s really not that bad.
Cops give out tickets for this in some states, I wish they’d do it more. Keep right, except to pass! Its there for a reason. Left lane campers cause compounding issues.
No they don’t. It’s speeders who cause “compounding issues” by driving like jerks.
I’ll say the same thing that I say to pedestrians and cyclists when it comes to “what’s right”. In an accident, “right” doesn’t make you any less dead.
So you can be a salmon and swim up river, or you can realise that’s a dumb evolutionary solution and flow with it.
It matters in court though. Any such accident is the fault of a speeder and it is them who should feel the fury of the legal system.
If he’s speeding and you’re in the left lane not passing aren’t you both breaking traffic laws?
At least his way you both get to drive the speed you want. Your way, everyone drives your speed and that’s that. In an ideal world we’d all go the limit and the left lane would be for people to get around those going slower but we both know that’s not reality. All you’re accomplishing is pissing people off and slightly increasing the jam up on the road.
It’s ok with me if we disagree, these are just opinions on a car blog.
“If he’s speeding and you’re in the left lane not passing aren’t you both breaking traffic laws?”
Nope. At least not in my state of California. Here the left lane is considered a travel lane and one can stay in it as long as desired as long as they are driving the speed limit regardless of how many people behind want to speed. CVC 22400 is quite clear on this:
Vehicle Code section 22400
(a)No person shall drive upon a highway at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic unless the reduced speed is necessary for safe operation, because of a grade, or in compliance with law.
https://california.public.law/codes/vehicle_code_section_22400#google_vignette
BTW this is not only my opinion. I have seen multiple online sources from CHP officers which say in California left lane drivers at the posted speed limit are NOT required to yield to speeders.
“At least his way you both get to drive the speed you want”
Not in the desired lane and only until leadfoot causes a wreck up ahead and gridlock.
“All you’re accomplishing is pissing people off and slightly increasing the jam up on the road”
Strange how only the feelings of speeders matter. What about the feelings of those who are being forced to assume all the risks and discomfort of right lane travel? The right lane is usually in poorer condition, has more traffic coming on and off, etc. And by forcing more people into the right lane it will congest sooner. All so speeders can get a free ride in the nicer, safer lane?
No. The left lane isn’t ment to be a speeders only zone.
In my opinion laws like the ones I brought up reward speeding, send mixed messages, reinforce a sense of entitlement to speed and encourages even more speeding.. None of those things are desirable.
And BTW if traffic is moving at the speed limit there is no “jam”. Traffic is in fact flowing as fast as legally possible which is the exact opposite of a jam.
“It’s ok with me if we disagree, these are just opinions on a car blog.”
Agreed!
Sounds like Cali needs to get better traffic laws. Here’s an excerpt from the MTO Driver’s Handbook here in Ontario, Canada:
Yes, I’m aware it says “slower than the speed limit”. A government website isn’t going to tell you to speed.
Further more, our Highway Traffic Act states:
“Yes, I’m aware it says “slower than the speed limit”. A government website isn’t going to tell you to speed”
That’s because it is illegal to pass vehicles moving at the speed limit. If right lane traffic is moving at the speed limit the left lane is completely off limits except perhaps to make a left turn.
And therein lies problems. Forcing traffic to use the right lanes increases wear and tear on those lanes, risk of collisions thanks to traffic coming on and off the roadway, congestion in those lanes so they back up faster and increases the need for lane changes. IMO keep right except to pass also encourages speeding by enticing folks in a hurry to use that wide open left lane to pass traffic even if it is already moving at or above the speed limit.
I feel like you missed the part where sticking to the right lane when not passing is also illegal.
Choosing one over the other says that you get to decide which laws it’s ok to break.
If you ask the data which causes more accidents, you’re picking the wrong law to uphold.
“I feel like you missed the part where sticking to the right lane when not passing is also illegal”
I didn’t miss it. It doesn’t exist. Your law interpretation stipulates the exact opposite:
“Therefore, it’s advisable to use the left lane for passing and to keep right when not overtaking another vehicle.”
“Choosing one over the other says that you get to decide which laws it’s ok to break”
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
So sitting in left lane is fine with you… OK, so are you also the guy that tries to ‘police’ the merge lane?
“So sitting in left lane is fine with you”
Driving the speed limit is not “sitting”. It is literally moving as fast as the law allows. If you are moving so fast you are confusing the speed limit with not moving at all you need to slow down. Like now.
“OK, so are you also the guy that tries to ‘police’ the merge lane?”
??? I have no idea what you are talking about by ‘policing’ the merge lane. So probably not.
SD is the only state with no law. The great majority say to stay right to allow traffic to pass, with minor variations.
https://www.autoinsurance.org/left-lane-driving-laws-by-state/
For instance
Indiana Code Title 9. Motor Vehicles § 9-21-5-7″The new law, which took effect as of July 1, 2015, allows law enforcement to issue tickets to motorists who are driving at or above the speed limit in the left lane if they do not move over when a faster-moving vehicle wants to pass. … Drivers who violate the law are committing a Class C infraction and risk a fine of up to $500.”
Good thing I don’t live in any of those states.
However if I did I would certainly ask why the officer cited someone driving the speed limit and let speeder(s) go. I would definitely bring that up in court. I imagine the judge would be interested in that answer too.
South Dakota is the only state without a left-lane law. Perhaps you block traffic in a foreign locale?
In the states I’ve taken the time to look up, speeding and left-lane laws are both Class C infractions, so to the law, speeding and blocking the left lane are equally bad. The police have no obligation to choose the one that you personally think is worse.
Besides, arguing that other’s were breaking the law too, is not a legal defense.
There is a lot of disinformation on the internet regarding California’s left lane laws (thanks MIT!) so I think the same is true for other states laws too. In California a driver at the posted speed limit is not required by law to yield to speeders. Not just my opinion but also that of the California Highway Patrol:
“Can you be in the left lane if you’re not turning or passing? Officer Margarito Meza, a spokesman for CHP, said you can drive in the far left lane on the highway even if you’re not passing another vehicle.
“Just as long as you’re going the maximum speed limit,” Meza said. If you’re going slower, you can be ticketed. “If a vehicle in the left lane is already driving 65 miles per hour, then they are by law going the maximum speed limit,” Meza said. “If someone behind them is driving 80 miles per hour, they (the slower vehicle) do not have to move over.”
https://www.sacbee.com/news/traffic/article276915168.html#storylink=cpy
But wait! There’s more!
“If a car behind you is trying to drive faster than you, do you legally have to move out of the way?
“California Vehicle Code section 21654 states: any vehicle proceeding upon a highway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic and moving in the same direction shall be driven in the right-hand lanes of traffic,” said Sgt. Brian Pennings with the California Highway Patrol.
“So in essence, what this law says is that when you’re traveling down a surface street for instance, if you are slower than the normal flow of traffic, you need to move over to the right-hand lane so that traffic that is faster than you can proceed in the left-hand lanes,” he explained.
“Now where this law gets confusing and oftentimes misinterpreted is when it applies to the freeway. Yes, the law says that if you are a slower-moving vehicle you need to move that over to the right-hand lanes if you are slower than the normal flow of traffic. But if somebody is traveling in the left-hand lane, and they’re already at or above the posted speed limit, that is not considered outside the normal flow of traffic.”
“The intent of this law is not to provide a wide-open left lane so vehicles can travel as fast as they want to go,” he added. “Even with this law in effect, the maximum posted speed limit on the freeway of 65 or 70 still applies.”
So how many cars need to be behind you before you legally need to move out of the way?
“21656 of the Vehicle Code says five vehicles,” said Sgt. Brian Pennings with the California Highway Patrol. “If there’s a slower moving vehicle that has five or more vehicles behind them, they have to use a posted turnout, but that only applies to a two-lane roadway, it does not apply the multi-lane highways.”
https://abc30.com/driving-road-safety-chp-california-highway-patrol/10670043/
I didn’t say it was a legal defense, only that to have the officer explain why they think someone driving the speed limit is the greater danger than speeders.
The left lane is for passing not lollygagging. The sad thing is that we need a law for that and even sadder is that people have the HUTA©️ and don’t even recognize they are the reason for the line of cars in all three lanes behind them.
Found the leadfoot. Driving the speed limit is not “lollygagging”.
Drive the speed limit, that’s fine dude – just do it in the right lane. But stop worrying about what everyone else and GTFO of the way. You sound like Volunteer Deputy Sherriff Dwight Shrute.
Why should a speed limit adherent shoulder the additional risks, discomfort and stress of right lane travel so speeders can add even more risk for everyone?
“Drive the speed limit, that’s fine dude – just do it in the right lane. But stop worrying about what everyone else and GTFO of the way”
The problem with that is if someone is driving in the right lane at the posted speed limit YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PASS! EVER! This is true in all 50 states.
So it makes no difference to you if someone is driving the speed limit in any lane. The only person who is bothered is a speeder. So I have a better idea, how about *you* slow the fuck down to the speed limit like you are required to? Then everyone gets to use the same lanes safely.
“You sound like Volunteer Deputy Sherriff Dwight Shrute.”
That’s because you know you are wrong as any cop or officer of the court will tell you.
Here’s the guy who, as a personal rule, blocks the left lane. He’s defended this position so many times here. What an insufferable cunt.
The only insufferable cunt here are the speeders who consider someone traveling the speed limit a road block.
Yes it is.
Maybe to a leadfoot whose opinion is worthless.
By law someone driving the speed limit is by definition driving as fast as possible which is exactly the opposite of “lollygagging”
Try going the speed limit on a freeway in California (without heavy traffic) and see what happens…
California has been my home for many decades, both SoCal and Norcal. And not only I drive here a lot I drive BELOW the posted speed limit in the right lanes. And what happens? I safely arrive at my destination having used less gas and with an unblemished driving record. Can you say the same?
The correct (and only) answer is the fact that FMVSS is distinct and different from the European Union’s or Japan’s standards (which are, broadly, stricter about safety for those inside and outside the vehicle, require lower emissions, and mandate more active crash prevention). It should be possible for an individual or a manufacturer to import any fully-compliant (i.e. not low-volume or kit-car exempt) homologated production car to the US and register it to be driven on our roads.
This single restriction covers the chicken tax, 25-year rule, and a litany of other dumb regulations.
(I’ll allow that it might be wise to exclude Japan and the UK from this due to them being RHD)
Why should they be excluded? RHD cars are perfectly legal in the US and in most other predominantly LHD countries (just think of the old Postal Jeeps).
And.25+ year old JDM vehicle being used a rural route USPS delivery vehicles.
I’m not sure that I agree with the claim that EU safety standards are safer than FMVSS ones for those inside the vehicle. Certainly pedestrian safety is much more important in the EU than it is in the US simply by virtue of the fact that they give a shit about it at all when FMVSS doesn’t and probably never will; but before the EU ramrodded a bunch of stuff into cars last year the EU was always more than a bit laggard for a lot of things that the US mandated pretty quickly to really support the claim that they are “stricter” about occupant safety.
Emissions I would agree with being ahead of that of the US technically (but only practically once Trump took office) but that is an *extremely* recent change of pace from how things were from the 1970s throughout basically the entire 2010s; and I’ll believe the EU will follow through with their 2035 emissions goals when I see them.
I used to be manufacturing engineer for the M-Class dashes and center consoles back in the mid-00’s. We had 6 different versions for different crash standards. US standards are less safe than European ones because they require restraining unbelted passengers in the front seats while European simply base their regulations on the idea that people are smart enough to wear a seatbelt.
The unbelted passenger requirement led to having airbags that deploy faster with more force – which is cause more damage to belted passengers – especially small framed ones that sit close to the wheel. The under dash structure was also more rigid so that when an unbelted passenger’s knees hit the dash it would hold them in place better while the EU version was soft and designed to collapse. This also leads to increased injuries for belted passengers when their legs fly forward and contact the more rigid dash structure.
Chicken Tax or 25 Year rule.
crash testing standards based on unbelted drivers like in the US. Apparently in Europe, the crash testing is done with belted passengers, so their airbags are smaller and deploy with less force.
That states are banning keis is my biggest peeve. Practical and 45mpg? Can’t have that competing here. Fun gullwing doors but only 11 feet long? Not safe! Has a VIN that is short? Too hard to figure out how to enter into DMV computers. Result? Ban them, at least from interstates, when you can still drive a ’60’s Beetle or ’29 Model A, because a Honda Beat or Mazda AZ-1 is an ‘unsafe’ kei truck…
And riding a motorcycle w/o a helmet is no big deal either but KEI cars? That’s crazy talk. I’m tired of this “Land of the Free” BS.
That’s easy- the regulation that requires dash lights to come on at dusk, whether or not the headlights are lit. Masking it worse, the DRLs are turned off because they’re “daytime” lights. This leads to countless “ghost cars” haunting the roads between sundown and full dark. Especially common in urban areas where streetlights allow the driver to see even if his headlights are dark. None of the info on the dashboard is as important as seeing and being seen!
Personally, I’d rather drive with a dark dash and better headlights. At minimum, automatic headlights should be mandated. THAT would surely prevent accidents.
+1
This is the dumbest. In the old days, people would automatically know their lights weren’t on because they couldn’t see their guages.
In the name of occupant safety, to hell with everyone else, eh?
I do find it absurd that some DRL’s [Nissan Rogue in particular] are bright enough that people drive them thinking their lights are on. Nearly rear ended one coming around a corner as it pulled out of a driveway, because my lights didn’t catch the reflectors until I was right on it. Was not the first, nor last, I saw one with no taillights at night.
I question whether having the dash lights on all the time does anything meaningful for safety.
I guess you could make a case for the speedometer. That’s why I loved SAAB’s idea for Night Panel, which illuminated only the speedo when you chose.
Well here’s the thing… if the driver checks their speed, they’ll notice their lights are off when they can’t see it because it’s dark. Hence, they’ll turn on their lights.
So in the end, they’ll be able to see the speedometer anyway… just not immediately.
Agreed.
I think that vehicles which have always-on DRLs for branding or styling reasons should also be required to have automatic headlights that default to an auto setting and need to be manually turned ‘off’.
And in ‘off’ they should have all exterior lighting and gauge cluster lighting turned off as well.
Yeah, but that’s impossible when the dash gauges are OLED display screens instead of mechanical gauges. When the screen isn’t lit, there’s no information at all.
And force headlights to come on when the wipers run more than about a minute.
Also some way for the car to detect fog would be nice. Rode to the big metro this week.in the fog. So.many cars and trucks with no lights.
This is an actual regulation? I thought this was just a trend but nothing actually mandated gauges to be always illuminated.
I believe I’ve read that, but I can’t remember the reference. I’m giving the manufacturers credit by blaming regulations. I can’t imagine every automaker, individually, deciding, “We’ll make the dash lights come on at dusk, the same time we turn off the DRLs, but the headlights will operate manually.”
If you happen to find the reference to the mandate you think you saw, I’d love to see it.
Well I think it’s largely due to a shift in gauges having a fully digital electronic face instead of a mechanical gauge with a needle. In that case they have no choice but to illuminate the gauges at all times in order for it to be visible.
That’s true. But this has been happening for at least a decade, when physical gauges were still common.
The law that prevents ATVs and side by sides from being driven on the roads. As far as I’m concerned, the only things they need to be road legal are headlights, taillights, turn signals, road rated tires and a horn.
If a motorcycle can be on the road without a windscreen, so can these vehicles. If we want Kei-Cars on the road (and we do!) we should also want these on the road.
Give them motorcycle regulation emissions and I’m fine with it.
Yeah, it seems fine to me too. I’d say that they need a license plate light as well, but that’s just being pedantic.
We need to allow all sorts of quadricycles and not ban them from the absurd number of rural roads with (unsafe) high speed limits.
Given in increasing price on cars, it’s also the only new vehicle some people can afford. (Talking entry level Kawasaki Mules here.)
OK, but doesn’t this basically create a class of cheaper cars with no crash safety? At that point, why would you pay 2x the money for a FMVSS regulated car?
You can drive ATVs on public roads in a lot of rural areas already, in that context it’s practical and the safety impact is minimal.
City roads is what I’m talking about. Commuter cars that cannot go on the freeway. Yes they would not be safe as a car so classify them as a subset of motorcycle that doesn’t need a motorcycle license to drive (think slingshot). Just let the buyers know that in an accident they will be chunky salsa. Their choice.