GPS Study Shows Drivers Will Slow Down, At A Cost

As a Prius owner/driver I strive not to impede other traffic, especially on the interstate. I know I will get better mpg at lower highway speeds and stay out of the left lane except for passing. I have noticed other drivers, Prius in particular, lurking in the left lane in what seems to be an attempt to regulate traffic speeds. I usually call 911 and report the vehicle.

I understand DPS treats this driving behavior as highly suspicious and that the vehicle might be involved in transporting contraband.

 

I currently drive a 2012 Honda Fit Sport automatic. Since I have a portable GPS unit (a TomTom 340XL), whenever I set the cruise control to match the GPS reading of 65 mph, I get some pretty astonishing fuel economy on the freeway, like nearly 40 mpg at times! (I can imagine around 50 mpg for a normal Mk. III Toyota Prius hatchback running steadily at the same speed based on GPS readings.)

 

A couple more states in the don't block the left lane mix -
Hallelujah! Oklahoma busting slow drivers in left lane

Fredericksburg.com - The law's clear: You must let drivers pass

I didn't mean to come down on you hard, people act as if speed enforcement on highways will magically drop fatalities, but that is only the smallest measure. If we look at statistics fatalities were speeding is the only factor are way down from 10 years ago. The fatalities that are rising are pedestrian and bicycle fatalities, and these are not at all speed related. They are distracted driving related, and in the city not on the highway. Motorcycle fatalities are also on the rise, as cars have gotten safer motorcycles have not, and there are large numbers of riders not wearing helmets. 51% of car fatalities, even with intrusive seat belt laws involve people not wearing there seat belts.

I'm not telling people to speed, but get out of the way, and share the road.

 

According to the articles you quoted, the first applies to drivers going less than the posted speed - not equal to it. The second applies to situations where a car in the left lane is driving abreast of a car in the right lane and a third driver wants to pass. It doesn't apply if there's a free lane, and it doesn't mean the speeding driver isn't breaking the law.

Personally, I rarely drive in the left lane, unless I'm passing. Most of the freeways I drive on have three lanes, and I drive in the middle because that gives me more room to move in if there's a problem anywhere. When there's two lanes, I drive on the right unless I'm passing, because I don't usually speed.

Years ago, my father was an engineer and the chairman of the highway commission in the state where I grew up. "Keep right unless passing" signs drove him crazy because when people drive mostly in the right lane it causes the highway to wear unevenly, and that means it must be repaired more frequently and at greater expense. Or at least that's what he used to tell me. I used to always drive in the left lane in his memory. But over the years drivers have become more and more aggressive. I'm not a road warrior and I don't care if it takes a few more minutes to get where I'm going. I drive to arrive alive.

 

The speeding fatality statistics are also suspect. The police need to give a reason for an accident, speeding is one of the acceptable answers when the underlying reason might have been that the driver had his head up his rectum or was talking on his cellphone, neither of which usually leaves evidence.

Much like alcohol related traffic accidents. If a person involved in an accident blows 0.08 or higher, it's an alcohol related accident whether the person who blows 0.08 was the cause of the accident or not. It gives the impression that the problem is worse than it is, but then that's the objective.

 

Here is my chart: Deaths per 100M vehicle miles.

With this much noise, there will be be very little agreement about what chart features are associated with what events. And considering that increasing speed limits, vehicle safety improvements, adoption of SUVs, and fleet changeovers were multi-year processes instead of step changes, it will be difficult to assign blame.

The chart feature that concerned me was the relative flattening from about about 1993 to 2005, where for more than a decade the average annual improvement was half the long term trend.

The repeal of the 55 mph speed limit started in 1987, but the federal restrictions didn't end until 1995, and various states incrementally raised the speed limits of various road types over many years. Airbags appeared in cars en mass in 1997, in SUVs later. ABS more gradually became common in the same era. I was surprised these safety improvements had so little impact. Did SUVs or higher speeds or something else consume some of the benefits of this equipment?

I note that deaths rates didn't resume their faster long term decline until after the rising speed limit era was mostly done, the increasing SUV market had leveled off, and electronic stability controls started becoming commonplace.

Of course, other people will see other connections in these graphs.

 

Oh yes we are including two lane roads here. The rants that got this thread fired up were not limited to muti-lane freeways or any particular road type.

 

Although obviously "speed" kills in every traffic accident (no speed means nobody is moving) I think most accidents are caused by factors other than simply breaking the posted speed limit (except in wild excess):

1) Distracted driving (major cause of accidents)
2) Drunk driving (huge also)
3) Driving too fast in inclement weather.

Really there's no reason at all a person going 75 in a 65 should be crashing if they are paying attention and the roads are clear. Everything happens a little quicker, but any modern automobile is of exceptional poise at 75 mph.

That is harsh. Well, I have lived in more areas than most and always been of the opinion while living or travelling that 5-7 on a speed limit won't get a ticket and it never has. I do sympathize with your point about certain rural areas, though. Going from a 55 to a "30 town limit" I always watch that pretty closely indeed because I can just feel that cops are pouncing on people passing through town to the beach.

------

Remember, if we lowered all speed limits to 20 we'd have far fewer accidents. There is always a balance between life and efficiency. Speed limits never change in given conditions and this is undoubtedly a shortcoming of them. Am I more likely to get in an accident at 65 in a 65 zone in heavy rain with lots of other traffic or driving at 70 in a 65 on a sunny day? I believe a good driver is able to use their own judgement. And my judgement tells me that if an 18 wheeler is able to drive 65 mph on a road in heavy rain legally I'm able to drive 70 in a car in good conditions. Does the law allow for this? No (http://bit.ly/sCgE9k). The real reason there is a single speed limit is not because it's proper, but because it's practical; there's no way currently to have speed limits vary for road conditions (traffic levels and weather, among other things). Now, there are few exceptions: some digital signs will have a lower limit in terrible weather, for example.

My argument is not that speed limits are irrelevant, merely that they are imperfect. This is truly beyond reproach. And as evidence I present any example in which a speed limit was changed (be it up or down--indeed, some are too high for a given road). If a road's limit changes from 55 to 65 one day it's not like everybody just got a brush up in driving skills or the road was repaved, but the transportation authority determined 55 was imprudent. One day 63 in a 55 could be illegal, but perfectly safe and the very next day 63 on that same road is 100% legal, but no more safe than it was the day prior.

 

While we are discussing multi-lane divided highways and how people drive, I have noticed a tendency for fast drivers to pass on the right. I am driving in the middle lane of three lanes when fast traffic comes up from behind in my lane. The fast driver can go left or right to get around me; most will choose right.

This is contrary to normal driver's education and normal passing. After watching this on many trips, I've come to the conclusion that the faster drivers are trying to hide from police radar. Darting around to the right makes them harder to see from police sitting in the median. I base this partially on my thinking when I was much younger, driving a much faster car.

Any other theories?

Tom

 

Is driving 5 mph over the school zone speed limit on a school holiday breaking the law when the signage is errantly flashing?

 

Assuming they are not avoiding some possible car in the left lane I would absolutely concur.

 

And being in the left lane and not passing traffic in the right is in it self a violation of the law in some locals, regardless of of the traveled speed.

We have some traffic laws because people don't have common courtesy. If you going slower than the rest of the traffic, stay out of the left lanes. If traffic is backing up behind you on a two lane road, and safe driving involves being aware of what's behind and to the sides, not just the front of you, pull off to the side when it is safe to do so.

As written, the Ca law does sound like obeying the speed limit is a justifiable reason to impede traffic (unless you are also violating a stay right except to pass), and cops are using it to enforce some driver courtesy. If ticketed for such a reason, you are free to take it to court.

 

And in many it is not. In Michigan there is no requirement to stay right when you have more than two lanes.

Part of the problem is the sorry state of our roads. Many of the highways in Michigan are now so poorly maintained that you shake your car to pieces driving in the right-most lane.

In other cases it is a matter of merging traffic. Many of the urban highways have nearly continuous traffic merging from the right. The right lane becomes the merging lane, the center lane the cruising lane, and the left lane the go-fast lane.

Tom

 

Come on. They are getting cnn to show them pulling over people going 3 under the posted limit. These cars in the left lane trying to slow people are traffic hazards. Virginia is even more strident and you can be pulled over even while speeding if you are slowing traffic, and this is California. The reasons are spelled out.

Well my point was get out of the left lane and let it be used as a passing lane. It sounds like you are doing that now, which means we don't really have an argument do we.

Now I'm starting to understand, you have an emotional attachment to the left lane. Your dad, rest his soul, should have talked to the transportation engineers. The left lane when properly used may last longer than the right, but blocking it reduces traffic flow and makes the road more dangerous. The trade offs are not even close.

Yes, laws are different, but there also isn't a law for many bad behaviors, that does not make them good. But there are many reasons that people clog the left lane, some are understandable, but most are not.

That is one of the few good explanations, and this is definitely a problem in states like Michigan. Poorly maintained roads cause more accidents.

Merging traffic is one of those bad excuses, that is unless on ramps are too short. People that want to go slow move left causing more congestion. If you want to go slow, you can shortly move over in heavy traffic or slow down more to allow merging. What happens often in reality is people hang in the left lane and middle lane, blocking the flow. Then faster traffic accelerates more passing on the right with more of a hazzard from slow moving or merging traffic. You drive on the autobahn you see good driving techniques and good flow. Even speeding traffic should not hang in the left lane. Passing on the right greatly increases the chances of accidents. The last time I did it, two cars were clogging the middle and left going 55 in a 60, with a long free stretch of right lane. I assume habit of not wanting to be in the merging lane made them decide they owned the rode. There was a line of cars that followed me. They were going above the minimum speed and probably thought every one should go as slow as them.

 

I like your chart. Certainly if I were told that a raising of the speed limits caused a great deal of deaths, and asked to point out what year it happened, I would point to 1975 when compliance was high but see a spike up, not in 1988 or 1995. One can definitely look at the graph and justify an opinion that speed limit increases have led to more deaths and the slope would be greater though.

One thing to look at would be fatalities on the roads where the speed limit is above 55 mph. I can't find a stat for all of them, but those attributed to speeding or excess speed for conditions was 2.9% in 2009, the last year I see broken out data. This compares to 7.5% for the same conditions in 35 mph or less speed limits. Distracted driving was blamed for 16% of all accidents, and distracted driving or drunk driving was often sited in these speed related fatalities.

 

Do you have any signage saying "Trucks Use Left Lane Next XX Miles"?

I've seen several of these elsewhere, where budget shortages pushed highway departments to try to extend the road life a few extra years.

Some of us still have a bunch of entrance and exit ramps on the left, legacies of the very first interstate highway design rules. They are slowly being replaced with right hand flyovers. But at the current pace, the Seattle region will still have some going into the 22nd Century.

Speed may not often be a primary cause, but it is very often an aggravating factor.

And for some reason, when conditions change and the road is no longer really clear, humans are reluctant to sufficiently slow down and space out their following distances. Witness all those freeway 10-100 car pileups when visibility is impaired or surface conditions deteriorate.

We are ahead of you on this. 18 wheelers are capped to 60 mph everywhere in this state, even where/when cars are allowed 65 or 70. And we now have multiple highway segments with variable speed limits.

Unfortunately, we don't limit driver's licenses to only that level of competence. Economic necessity and lack of comprehensive public transport force us to deny licenses to only the very worst drivers, and even then we don't have effective methods to keep them off the road.

Unless we are willing to see the highway bloodshed climb very sharply, driving rules must also accommodate below average drivers, not just 'good' drivers.

I've seen enough driving in China and Vietnam. I really, really, really don't want that level of roadway carnage.

 

The autobahn is indeed a good example of how highways should operate, but in fairness it should be noted that German drivers are a good example of how drivers should be trained. In this country we hand out driver's licenses like prizes from a cereal box. In Germany, driver's education is more like getting a private pilot's license. It's expensive, intensive, and time consuming. German drivers are serious drivers.

Not so in our country. Our drivers are mostly a bunch of distracted, entitled amateurs. If people drove like professionals, merging would work as you describe. Unfortunately they don't. How it really works is that traffic comes down the ramp without paying any attention to traffic on the highway. The merging drivers blindly assume that someone will make room for them. If you are lucky, there is room to move over and let them in, but after that you can't get back into the right lane. The right lane traffic sling-shots around, including the merging traffic.

Now if these drivers did it like German drivers, they would merge properly. Once onto the highway, if they wanted to go faster, they wouldn't sling-shot around to the right, but would properly change lanes to the fast lane and pass to the left. This would allow slower traffic room to move back to the right. That's how it should be done, but it isn't, at least in this part of the country.

This gets back to my general complaint about not following rules. If everyone follows the rules, we all know what to expect and traffic flows smoothly. But there are always some drivers that feel entitled. The rules don't apply to them, and pretty soon it is a free for all of everyone jockeying for an advantage. It's a poor way to drive.

Don't like the rules? Get them changed.

Tom

 

I believe Germany also has better public alternatives for those who don't drive. This allows the country to set a higher driver standard without effectively issuing an economic death penalty to those who fail to meet the standard. Any really effective standard will also create a significant rate of non-drivers.

For U.S. residents, losing a drivers license suddenly puts most of the country off limits, for both housing and employment. If it happens in great numbers, the political backlash will be strong.

 

Ok, we can agree about that. It is also the proper way to drive. But there is a fixation that government enforced solutions, more ticketing, gps tracking, cameras, instead of more education is needed.

I've driven in the detroit area, and there seems to be a rush to the bottom of good driving behavior. Its a self reinforcing item, where drivers see bad behavior and follow it.

You said you were a pilot, when I was learning to fly I started following a plane that was in a bad approach pattern. My instructor asked me what I was doing, then said you ca't follow someone in a bad pattern. The next time we weren't in traffic she pulled my power on approach to reinforce a safe pattern. People will follow bad patterns or good ones. Most of the comments here seemed to be anti speeding where people get in the bad pattern of blocking lanes with the misguided idea it is there job to stop the speeders. It is not. I certainly was not advocating that you should follow unsafe behavior.

In my state, Texas, it is legal and proper to exceed the posted speed limit to safely pull past slower traffic and move right to allow faster drivers to pass. Michigan is quite different, where there is an official tolerance of 5mph over the limit, but anything over posted is against the law. Yes, I just looked that up. In Texas going at the posted speed limit when weather or traffic make it unsafe is illegal and speeding. These are quite different laws, and I certainly support Michigan rights to apply and enforce them.

 

I think we need both better education and enforcement of the rules. All of the good education in the world is worth nothing when someone who feels entitled to ignore it is given that latitude by a failure to enforce the rules.

My dad was the state highway commission chair back when freeways were a shiny new thing, and four-lane roads were rare in a state with wide-open spaces and little traffic. Traffic flow was not an issue, except maybe in a few places. Road maintenance was. Thus his remark to me that he wanted to rip all of the "keep right except to pass" signs out of the ground.