This is a solved problem. The left lane is the passing lane, the right lane is the cruising lane. If you're not passing, you should be in the right lane. Highway traffic organizes itself if you do this.
US highways (and driving in general) will always be fucked as long as the only requirement for a driver's license is a pulse, and you never get ticketed for ignoring the rules of the road. Your average American driver is lazy, stupid, combative, uneducated, clumsy, or some combination of them, and they will never be inconvenienced by the behavior enough to change it.
The only way to fix this is to enforce the rules that already exist, which will never be done.
The state highway I take to work frequently has State Patrols pulling people over who are getting passed by people in the right lanes. It’s a law in my state to move over even if the person who passed you in the right lane is speeding.
> Except when overtaking and passing on the right is permitted, the driver of an overtaken vehicle, on audible signal, shall give way to the right in favor of the overtaking vehicle.
In the SFBA you’ll see some of the fastest drivers deliberately passing from the right lane - my guess is they think they are less visible outside the fast lane.
This isn't remotely a solved problem in the congested city and suburban highways they're trying this for. What you're describing works perfectly fine for a two-lane rural highway running between cities where the average vehicle spacing is half a kilometer apart bare minimum. It's not viable during near perpetual rush-hour conditions to just tell everyone to not just one lane of the highway unless they're passing. When there are seven lanes on each side, how do they even get to the left lane to do the passing? Cut across six, pass, then cut back?
Every successive left lane is meant for passing traffic in the lane to the right of it. This is a touch simplistic (the rightmost lane is for traffic entering/exiting) but the practical bit is relatively simple:
Drive in the furthest lane to the right that is practical. Merge left to pass a person in front of you. Merge back right when you are no longer passing. Do this regardless of which lane you are in.
I have wondered if you could use simulation based on actual driver behavior to quantify the impact when a single truck moves from the slow lane to the second lane from right. You get a huge number of cars that, themselves, should be the slow lane, but still need to pass the truck. Many will, as they are instructed, get over and pass the truck on the left. That's what I do for the most part. But it makes an amazing impact on traffic to have twice the lane changes, and many folks, once they have gotten over to pass, remain in the "passing" lane.
This truck behavior is a recent change, the last ten years at most. I have certainly noticed that when merging I essentially never have to speed up or slow down for a big rig. It's certainly easier to merge with a light truck or car!
But the organization of traffic has almost completely broken down in the San Francisco Area. I have heard that the California Highway Patrol more or less refuses to enforce any traffic regulation that isn't driven by safety. And to be fair, I rarely see CHP cars, so they may well be spread so thin that they can barely keep the flow of traffic from going 20+ MPH over the limit.
> This is a solved problem. The left lane is the passing lane, the right lane is the cruising lane. If you're not passing, you should be in the right lane. Highway traffic organizes itself if you do this.
Ok, but what about the other five lanes? Only use the left lane for passing works when traffic is light. When traffic gets heavier, you need to use all lanes to increase throughput; even though it makes passing more difficult.
1) If there is a car behind you, and no car in front of you, go one lane to the right.
2) Always pass on the left.
Breaking either rule is a > $1000 fine, and points on your license.
This is how it works everywhere I’ve driven except California, and it works great.
During congestion, there is invariably a car in the fast lane with no cars in front of it, and a line of 1000 cars behind it. That driver should lose their license.
Americans are not willing to do what it would take to raise driving standards. Germany has the Autobahn. The passing lane concept is followed there. Getting a driver’s license is much more involved and includes CPR training. In the US we expect 16 year olds to be able to drive to school because the town is designed in a car dependent manner. Not having access to driving is like not having legs. You can get fined for running out of fuel on the Autobahn. In the US we bristle at the idea of roadworthiness inspections. We hate tolls and taxes more than potholes. You can’t drive 200km/hr on a rough road. In the US we have more cup holders than seats in our cars. German cars don’t have cup holders because you’re suppose to be focused on driving.
> German cars don’t have cup holders because you’re suppose to be focused on driving.
Every BMW, Audi, and Mercedes that I've driven has had cup holders. This seems like one of those tropes like "Russian cosmonauts just used pencils!" that is easily debunked with even the most rudimentary of searches, but somehow lives on in the zeitgeist.
In Oklahoma the interstate has periodic warnings that drive in the left lane is for passing only, and is a fineable violation. Like magic, when driving over the state border, the drivers magically become more aware and cognizant of passing and getting out of the way.
Enforcement is the only way laws have any effect at all, otherwise they are words on paper nobody reads.
When the roads have 5 lanes each direction, we need greater social cohesion to set up differentiated cruising and passing. The majority of people prefer to have more open space directly ahead of them (unless impaired enough to want to follow someone else's lead or having trouble with nighttime visibility), so they sort of spread out.
> Your average human driver is lazy, stupid, combative, uneducated, clumsy, or some combination of them, and they will never be inconvenienced by the behavior enough to change it.
No, Americans are specifically worse. Simply look at what is needed to earn a license - almost nothing, and it also costs next to nothing. American driving laws are also extremely lax, there are American drivers who have had multiple DUIs in life and still have a license.
Within indexical semiosis:
The left lane = the fast lane
Ergo driver can identify as driving fast without regard to the actual speed limit or whether or not they are passing other vehicles. Ask people within FL what the left lane of the highway is called and you will seldom hear “the passing lane.”
This is my take too. The left lane to many is “the fast lane” and because virtually every driver perceives themselves to be above average, this is the lane they decide is right for them to be in.
> The most unanticipated result of this study was the fact that the minimum speed signing generally moved more drivers into the left lanes instead of moving slow drivers to the right lane.
Fascinating. I wonder why. Perhaps people are generally so confident that they are driving at the right speed, not cluttering the traffic (even when others do think so), they don't consider it a necessity to move over the slower lanes (even when they should). A sign of minimum speed, instead of being a reminder, on the one hand confuses some into thinking it's the maximum speed, and on the other hand, challenges that confidence---surely I'm not so incapable a driver that I can't maintain 60+ mph!
> The police found the minimum speeds to be essentially unenforceable, observing that drivers were passing more on the right, a quarter of all motorists didn't even notice the signs, and 13% of citations issued for minimum speed violations indicated that drivers confused “minimum” for “maximum.”
Striking, IMO, that their conclusion was "unenforceable". That might be the main take here: California highway patrol obsesses on some rules and just plain doesn't bother with others. So in practice there is no risk to grabbing a lane - any lane - and acting as if you own it.
I commend them for doing the test; this is an excellent idea.
Sadly, the test is no good in an environment where most drivers are very undisciplined and also confused about the tests (e.g., mistaking "minimum" for "maximum"), and there is insufficient time for retraining and habituation.
I'm sure it could work, but it probably requires a far more educated and disciplined approach to driving.
I agree, a real world test is key. But as structured, the test was doomed to fail. It would need more groundwork & education, probably A/B testing of signs to eliminate min/max confusion (e.g., would a sign saying "Speed only 65-75mph" be better than the "Speed 10mph minimum"), TV public relations campaign and even advertising about the test, etc. Maybe some of this happened, but it wasn't evident from the article
Readit News
US highways (and driving in general) will always be fucked as long as the only requirement for a driver's license is a pulse, and you never get ticketed for ignoring the rules of the road. Your average American driver is lazy, stupid, combative, uneducated, clumsy, or some combination of them, and they will never be inconvenienced by the behavior enough to change it.
The only way to fix this is to enforce the rules that already exist, which will never be done.
> Except when overtaking and passing on the right is permitted, the driver of an overtaken vehicle, on audible signal, shall give way to the right in favor of the overtaking vehicle.
https://casetext.com/statute/code-of-maryland/article-transp...
One interesting difference between the german autobahn and american freeways seems to be how the left lane is treated.
On the autobahn, if someone is going faster in the left lane, the slower person should pull right.
In the US, if the person in the left lane is going the speed limit or over, they don't feel any need to move to the right for someone going faster.
Drive in the furthest lane to the right that is practical. Merge left to pass a person in front of you. Merge back right when you are no longer passing. Do this regardless of which lane you are in.
This truck behavior is a recent change, the last ten years at most. I have certainly noticed that when merging I essentially never have to speed up or slow down for a big rig. It's certainly easier to merge with a light truck or car!
But the organization of traffic has almost completely broken down in the San Francisco Area. I have heard that the California Highway Patrol more or less refuses to enforce any traffic regulation that isn't driven by safety. And to be fair, I rarely see CHP cars, so they may well be spread so thin that they can barely keep the flow of traffic from going 20+ MPH over the limit.
Ok, but what about the other five lanes? Only use the left lane for passing works when traffic is light. When traffic gets heavier, you need to use all lanes to increase throughput; even though it makes passing more difficult.
2) Always pass on the left.
Breaking either rule is a > $1000 fine, and points on your license.
This is how it works everywhere I’ve driven except California, and it works great.
During congestion, there is invariably a car in the fast lane with no cars in front of it, and a line of 1000 cars behind it. That driver should lose their license.
Every BMW, Audi, and Mercedes that I've driven has had cup holders. This seems like one of those tropes like "Russian cosmonauts just used pencils!" that is easily debunked with even the most rudimentary of searches, but somehow lives on in the zeitgeist.
Enforcement is the only way laws have any effect at all, otherwise they are words on paper nobody reads.
FTFY
Within indexical semiosis: The left lane = the fast lane
Ergo driver can identify as driving fast without regard to the actual speed limit or whether or not they are passing other vehicles. Ask people within FL what the left lane of the highway is called and you will seldom hear “the passing lane.”
Fascinating. I wonder why. Perhaps people are generally so confident that they are driving at the right speed, not cluttering the traffic (even when others do think so), they don't consider it a necessity to move over the slower lanes (even when they should). A sign of minimum speed, instead of being a reminder, on the one hand confuses some into thinking it's the maximum speed, and on the other hand, challenges that confidence---surely I'm not so incapable a driver that I can't maintain 60+ mph!
> The police found the minimum speeds to be essentially unenforceable, observing that drivers were passing more on the right, a quarter of all motorists didn't even notice the signs, and 13% of citations issued for minimum speed violations indicated that drivers confused “minimum” for “maximum.”
Striking, IMO, that their conclusion was "unenforceable". That might be the main take here: California highway patrol obsesses on some rules and just plain doesn't bother with others. So in practice there is no risk to grabbing a lane - any lane - and acting as if you own it.
Sadly, the test is no good in an environment where most drivers are very undisciplined and also confused about the tests (e.g., mistaking "minimum" for "maximum"), and there is insufficient time for retraining and habituation.
I'm sure it could work, but it probably requires a far more educated and disciplined approach to driving.
Deleted Comment