HOV lane behavior...

In article >,
Scott en Aztlán <newsgroup> wrote:
>You must have some strange freeways where you live. Around here,
>NORMAL speeds are 75 - 90 MPH; speeds of 25 MPH are EXCEPTIONS to the
>norm.

During typical commute hours on urban California freeways, there are
many (long) sections where one would be lucky to go even 25mph in the
non-HOV lanes.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome.
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.

Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On 27 May 2005 11:32:56 -0700, wrote:
>
>> Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>>> On Fri, 27 May 2005 12:07:49 GMT, "Craig Holl"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>>>>> On 26 May 2005 10:19:38 -0700, wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Slower Traffic Keep Right still applies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not in the case of an HOV lane. Statutes in my state, at least
>>>>>> (and this stuff is usually boilerplate from state to state) sets
>>>>>> the farthest left GP lane as the left-most lane, ignoring the
>>>>>> HOV lane.
>>>>>> It operates as a separate system for purposes of KRETP.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cite.
>>
>> In Colorado, as I mentioned earlier, it is placed right in the KRETP
>> law itself:
>>
>> (b) "Passing lane" means the farthest to the left lane if there are
>> two
>> or more adjacent lanes of traffic moving in the same direction in one
>> roadway; ***except that, if such left lane is restricted to high
>> occupancy vehicle use or is designed for left turns only, the passing
>> lane shall be the lane immediately to the right of such high
>> occupancy
>> lane or left-turn lane.***
>
> Thank you for the citation. But paraphrasing another poster, most of
> the country does not live in Colorado.

But CO law is the only law cited in this thread that pertains to the HOV
lane being the passing lane or not of the GP lanes. So far, it is the only
law applicable to the discussion at hand, which is whether the HOV lane is
the passing lane for the GP lanes.

>>>>> In CA, CVC 21654 makes no exceptions for users of the HOV lane.
>>
>> That's because they are not a part of the GP lanes
>
> Where does CA law say that?

Where does CA law say they *are* a part of the GP lanes?

We've already established the CO law says they are not a part of the GP
lanes. Since most of this sort of stuff is standard for most states, it is
a logical conclusion that CA law is the same, unless you can prove
otherwise. It is also possible CA law does not specify if they are or are
not a part of the GP lanes. If that is the case, then there is no legal
basis for the HOV lane being the passing lane, so KRETP does not apply
between the HOV lanes and the GP lanes.

--
Craig Holl
Mechanical Engineer; New Berlin, WI
www.midwestroads.com
*remove all numbers and caps to reply*

Scott en Aztl=E1n wrote:
> On Fri, 27 May 2005 21:37:57 GMT, "Craig Holl"
> > wrote:
>
> >> What's the point of making up ridiculous extreme scenarios? The law
> >> specifically refers to the NORMAL speed of traffic. If the normal
> >> speed of traffic is 200 MPH, then yes, you need to get the **** out of
> >> the way. However, while my example of 90 MPH is pretty much the norm
> >> on some stretches (especially I-5 between The OC and San Diego), I
> >> can't recall driving on any roads where normal speeds approached 200
> >> MPH.
> >
> >It may be extreme, but it is an extremely remote possibility. I was just
> >wondering if you thought I would be in the wrong in that situation. If =
the
> >100/200 mph situation isn't wrong, then at what speeds (for both cars) w=
ould
> >it be wrong? Where is the cutoff?
>
> According to the law, the normal speed of traffic is the cutoff.
>
> Note that the cutoff is NOT the posted speed limit, and NOT some
> random number that some Sloth pulled out of his ass.

Nor is it your 90 mph when everyone else is doing 65. Therefore, no
legal requirement to get out of your way.

Scott en Aztl=E1n wrote:
> On Fri, 27 May 2005 17:25:47 GMT, (Timothy J. Lee)
> wrote:
>
> >>>And you are under no obligation to match the speed of the fastest
> >>>vehicle in the lane.
> >>
> >>CA VC 21654 says you're wrong.
> >
> >Here is California Vehicle Code 21654:
> >
> >It says "normal speed of traffic", not "fastest vehicle in the lane".
>
> If the fastest vehicle in the lane is driving at the normal speed of
> traffic, then they are one and the same.

Your statement is oxymoronic. It is not possible for the fastest car in
a group to be going the same speed as all others. The fastest car moust
be going "faster" than someone else in order to be fastest.

Normal speed of traffic would have to be something less than the
fastest.

> And, since most people are
> driving at the normal speed of traffic, chances are very good that the
> fastest vehicle in the HOV lane is going to be driving at the normal
> speed of traffic, and that Sloth better get the **** out of the HOV
> lane.

Chances of this are not only not good, but unlikely. It does not
logically follow that if "most" people are driving the normal speed of
traffic, that then the fastest vehicle is also going the normal speed.
That's a contradiction. In addition, since the HOV lanes operate as a
separate facility, there's no obligation to exit them as long as you
are complying with the 2+ or 3+ rule.

> >If the HOV lane is considered part of the freeway, then the original
> >poster's situation has him passing the other freeway traffic (which,
> >due to sheer volume, would define the "normal speed of traffic")
> >pretty much continuously, so he is under no obligation to go to the
> >right lane of the freeway.
>
> Until his pass is completed and he has an opportunity to move right.

Not if he doesn't want to get out yet.

> >If the HOV lane is considered a separate road, then the original poster
> >is in the right lane of the one lane HOV "road". Note that the "slower t=
raffic use turnouts" law (California Vehicle
> >Code 21656) only applies to two-lane roads.
>
> Well, *if* you can find legal justification for the claim that HOV
> lanes are a separate "road," then of course it's a TWO-LANE road,
> since there is typically one HOV lane on each side of the center
> divide. OTOH, if it's a 4-lane HOV "road" such as exists in some parts
> of Orange County, then the Sloths better stay in the rightmost lane of
> that "road" and allow faster traffic to pass.

Now that's the first correct observation I've seen you make on this
issue.

Scott en Aztl=E1n wrote:
> On 27 May 2005 11:32:56 -0700, wrote:
>
> >Scott en Aztl=E1n wrote:
> >> On Fri, 27 May 2005 12:07:49 GMT, "Craig Holl"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >Scott en Aztl=E1n wrote:
> >> >> On 26 May 2005 10:19:38 -0700, wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>> Slower Traffic Keep Right still applies.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Not in the case of an HOV lane. Statutes in my state, at least (and
> >> >>> this stuff is usually boilerplate from state to state) sets the
> >> >>> farthest left GP lane as the left-most lane, ignoring the HOV lane.
> >> >>> It operates as a separate system for purposes of KRETP.
> >> >>
> >> >> Cite.
> >
> >In Colorado, as I mentioned earlier, it is placed right in the KRETP
> >law itself:
> >
> >(b) "Passing lane" means the farthest to the left lane if there are two
> >or more adjacent lanes of traffic moving in the same direction in one
> >roadway; ***except that, if such left lane is restricted to high
> >occupancy vehicle use or is designed for left turns only, the passing
> >lane shall be the lane immediately to the right of such high occupancy
> >lane or left-turn lane.***
>
> Thank you for the citation. But paraphrasing another poster, most of
> the country does not live in Colorado.

Nor California. But the cite is quite clear. You asked for a cite.
There you have it.

> >That last sentence is what does it. BTW, talk to any traffic engineer
> >about this. The HOV lanes are *never* regarded as the far left lanes of
> >the GP system. They are separately regulated.
>
> In Colorado.

And everywhere I'm familiar with. You cannot reasonably integrate
merging movements from an HOV facility to the passing lane of the GP
lanes along the lines of a KRETP requirement.

> >> >> In CA, CVC 21654 makes no exceptions for users of the HOV lane.
> >
> >That's because they are not a part of the GP lanes
>
> Where does CA law say that?

21655.5 sets them up as a separate class of lanes with their own rules.

> >> >Here are a couple pictures which clearly show that the HOV lanes on I=
-405
> >> >are a separate facility from the GP lanes. Yellow lines indicate sep=
arate
> >> >streams of traffic.
> >>
> >> That's the best you can do?
> >
> >Do you mean to say, that his providing you visual proof of our point
> >isn't the best? What could be better?
>
> The fact that there are yellow stripes on the pavement is not at
> issue. The issue is whether yellow stripes consitute a separate
> roadway with entirely separate rules. And those photographs do not
> provide any evidence to support or deny that claim.

Have you read your driver's manual lately? The photos absolutely
prove his and my point. It is forbidden to cross a double yellow line
(well, except for certain circumstances such as emergencies, noted in
the statute). BTW, no one said they constituted a separate *roadway."
But they do constitute a separate *facility.* They are authorized
separately in the statutes (such as the one I cited above).

> BTW, when yellow lines appear in the center of a road, they generally
> do NOT delimit a separate road - they delimit different portions of
> the SAME road.

Yes, absolutely, and again, we've not said the HOV lanes are a
separate roadway so much as they are a separate facility, which they
obviously are.

> For example, a double yellow center line down the
> center of State Route 74 does not divide the road into Stte Route 74
> and State Route 75 - both sides are SR-74, they just carry traffic in
> different directions.

Being a little pedantic? You're knocking down your own straw men.

> Likewise, the carpool lanes on I-405 are still
> part of I-405 - they are not I-407 or I-605.
>
> If you wish to assert that yelow lines constitute a separate roadway,
> the burden of proof is on you.

And no one is being so silly here pushing this line except you. What
you cannot deny is that the HOV lanes operate under their own separate
authority and rules. They are a separate facility.

> >Let's go to the photo again.... Hmmmm. You're wrong. I mena, just think
> >about it for a second. You *cannot* move to the right in those HOV
> >lanes -- it is *illegal* to do that unless you are at one of the
> >designated crossovers. The fines are quite high for violating it.
>
> But once you do reach one, you are required by law to exit and allow
> faster traffic to pass.

Cite. I found nothing of the sort in the rules regarding use of HOV
lanes, which as we've now established are separate from GP lanes.

> You may already know that some states require slow vehicles on
> two-lane rods to use turnouts to allow faster traffic to pass. This is
> really no different.

Yes it is. Someone going 65 more or less with the rest of the platoon
of vehicles is not a "slow moving vehicle" subject to the turnout
requirement - nor to the KRETP requirement if they are in fact
passing cars to the right at the time. It is you at 90 who is not going
with the normal flow of traffic, if traffic is going 65 or 75. We have
no obligation to make way for you in such a case. You just have to wait
your turn.

Scott en Aztl=E1n wrote:
> On 27 May 2005 11:13:29 -0700, wrote:
>
> >> Show me where I claimed that this was the PRIMARY usage.
> >
> >In the very words that name the facility: "High Occupancy Vehicle"
> >lanes. They are set up in legislation for the primary purpose of
> >accommodating vehicles that carry 2, or sometimes 3 or more, people.
> >That's why they were built. Please don't continue to look silly by
> >trying to deny this.
>
> You're the one who looks silly, arguing semantics and ignoring the
> point of the discussion. But if that's what it takes for you to feel
> that you "won," so be it.

Hmmm. *I* look silly pointing out that the purpose of the HOV lane is
for HOVs? And I wonder why we're not making progress here! You said
earlier the purpose of *HOV* lanes was a clas of users who are not
driving HOVs. I've addressed the very hear of the issue. Now, who is
silly?

I'm not arguying semantics, I started by pointing out your error
upthread when you said:
"The purpose of the HOV lane is to reward drivers of low
pollution/high efficiency vehicles by letting them travel on the
highway unimpeded. Having some inconsiderate Sloth blocking the road
defeats the whole purpose of having an HOV lane."

That;s just patently false. The purpose of HOV lanes is not to reward
low pollution/high occupancy vehicle drivers by letting them travel
*unimpeded.* One may often find themselves impeded even in HOV lanes;
there's no government guarantee of free-flow travel. But the primary
purpoise is to encourage car-pooling to remove cars from the system
(whether it works is another debate!). Hybrids and other allowable
users such as motorcycles are incidental uses of the exces capacity.
The HOV concept has nothing to do with *unimpeded* travel, just faster
travel than the GP lanes in exchange for car-pooling. Unimpeded and
faster are not the same things.

Second, someone driving less fast than you isn't defeating the whole
purpose of the lane at all, if in fact you are trying to do 90 or more
in that car-pool lane while the normal flow of nearly everyone else is
65 or 75 or 80. It's merely holding you up a bit. Why should you cut
in line ahead of these folks? They're taxpayers too. Why should your
MFFY atttidtue *cost them their own valuable time* by forcing them to
get into the lanes of people driving 25 or 30 - or even 55 - just
for your marginal gain? Their time is no less valuable than yours.

> >> In any case,
> >> nothing you have said so far does anything to debunk my primary point.
> >
> >Actually, I did. I debunked all of it. The HOV lane is not considered
> >the far left lane of the GP lanes; it is its own facility. KRETP does
> >not apply
>
> Isn't it interesting that while I cite actual laws, the best my
> opposition can do is to simply repeat made-up assertions and Ad
> Hominem attacks?

You clearly don't understand the concept "ad hominem." I did no
such thing.

> Despite repeated challenges, you cannot cite even ONE
> vehicle code statute that support your claims.

Don't you mean, *other* than the ONE that I DID cite and to which we're
all responding?

Scott en Aztlán > writes:

>On 27 May 2005 10:47:19 -0500, The Chief Instigator >
>wrote:

>>>Face it, you're wrong. HOV lanes are part of the SAME road, and
>>>subject to the SAME rules - the ONLY exceptions (who may enter and
>>>where) are clearly specified by law.

>>That's all fine and dandy if you're in California...which 90% of us in this
>>country aren't.

>So feel free to cite the law where you live.

I've already pointed out that in the Houston area, the majority of HOV miles
are separated from the freeway mainline by jersey walls - and the first
section to be wider than one lane (I-10 Katy, from the West Loop out to Katy)
won't be open until 2008 at the earliest. You don't pull over for faster
traffic in such conditions...and the law acknowledges that.

--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey ) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (soon to be TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Chicago 5, Houston 3 (April 26)
NEXT GAME: Date/opponent/site TBA in August 2005

Scott en Aztl=E1n wrote:
> On Fri, 27 May 2005 21:44:20 GMT, "Craig Holl"
> > wrote:
>
> >If traffic in the GP lanes can go 85 mph, there's no need to be in the H=
OV
> >lane. The main benefit of HOV lanes is when the GP lanes are backed up.=
It
> >gives people making efficient use of the freeway (HOVs) an incentive to =
do
> >so, by letting them go 10-60 mph faster than the general flow.
>
> I'm glad to see there is at least one person who understands what I am
> saying. It is intended as a REWARD to people who use the ffreeway in
> ways that the government wishes to encourage.

Scott, we understand what you're saying; we're responding that you're
wrong. I agree with what Craig says above, and it's no different from
what I've been saying. You are saying something different -- that
people must get out of the HOV lane if they're doing 65 when you're
behind them wanting to do 90.

Your assessment of the government's wish is off. The government's
purpose in establishing an HOV lane isn't to encourage 90-mph driving.

> As I said before, having some Sloth blocking the HOV lane defeats the
> whole purpose.

Not if the "sloth" is already going 65 or 75. While that's slower than
you want to go, it's not wrong for him to go that speed.

Scott en Aztl=E1n wrote:

> >> >> In CA, CVC 21654 makes no exceptions for users of the HOV lane.
> >
> >That's because they are not a part of the GP lanes
>
> Where does CA law say that?

"(a) Whenever a highway has been divided into two or more roadways by
means of intermittent barriers or by means of a dividing section of not
less than two feet in width, either unpaved or delineated by curbs,
double-parallel lines, or other markings on the roadway..."

21651. (a)

Section on divided highways. It's a separate road.

Dave

Dave wrote:
> Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>
>
>>>>>>In CA, CVC 21654 makes no exceptions for users of the HOV lane.
>>>
>>>That's because they are not a part of the GP lanes
>>
>>Where does CA law say that?
>
> "(a) Whenever a highway has been divided into two or more roadways by
> means of intermittent barriers or by means of a dividing section of not
> less than two feet in width, either unpaved or delineated by curbs,
> double-parallel lines, or other markings on the roadway..."
>
> 21651. (a)
>
> Section on divided highways. It's a separate road.
>
> Dave

Give it up. He'll never listen.