HOV lane behavior...

wrote:
> Scott en Aztlán wrote:

>>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.

Where do you draw the line then? What if the general purpose lanes are
moving between 10 and 20 mph, and the slower driver in the HOV lane
refuses to go more than 60 mph? What about 50 mph? 40? 30?

Arif Khokar wrote:
> wrote:
> > Scott en Aztl=E1n wrote:
>
> >>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.
>
> Where do you draw the line then? What if the general purpose lanes are
> moving between 10 and 20 mph, and the slower driver in the HOV lane
> refuses to go more than 60 mph? What about 50 mph? 40? 30?

Set minimum speeds. You know, I am not advocating that people go 50 or
40 or 30 in the HOV lanes at all; they're assholes. But what I am
saying is that the law does not require such people already doing 65 or
so to exit the HOV lanes for people doing 90.

>>>>>>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.

Some of the southern CA HOV lanes are legally separate roadways. None
of the northern CA ones are, except near toll plazas.

In article >,
Arif Khokar > wrote:
wrote:
>> Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>
>>>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.
>
>Where do you draw the line then? What if the general purpose lanes are
>moving between 10 and 20 mph, and the slower driver in the HOV lane
>refuses to go more than 60 mph? What about 50 mph? 40? 30?

As long as the driver in the HOV lane is passing those in the
next lane over, that driver is not violating any "keep right except
to pass" laws. On the other hand, it is still annoying if, for
example, the driver in a clear HOV lane drives 15mph to pass traffic
going 5mph (not all annoying behaviors are illegal).

It can be unwise to drive significantly faster than the speed limit
in the HOV lane, since the HOV lane is often heavily watched by police
(mainly looking for SOVs in the HOV lane, but they probably wouldn't
pass up a chance to ticket someone driving flagrantly faster than the
speed limit). In addition, basic speed law considerations may apply
in areas where drivers pop into the HOV lane without looking carefully
enough.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Sat, 28 May 2005 03:25:15 GMT, "Craig Holl"
> > wrote:
>
>>>> 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?
>
> It doesn't have to. It's obvious to anyone with eyes that they are all
> part of the same road, and there's no need for the law to state the
> obvious. OTOH, if the law is intended to specify something
> counterintuitive, then the statute has to spell that out (as is done
> in the case of the Colorado law cited earlier).

Well so far you're the only one (out of more than a dozen) in this thread
that has stated that the HOV lanes are a part of the GP lanes. Obviously it
isn't obvious. And the fact that double-yellow lines separate the lanes
shows that they are indeed separate streams of traffic.

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

Scott en Aztlán wrote:

> On 28 May 2005 08:50:44 -0700, "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.
>
>
> In that case, it's a separate TWO-LANE road (since there's one HOV
> lane on the other side) and CVC 21656 applies:
>
> 21656. On a two-lane highway where passing is unsafe because of
> traffic in the opposite direction or other conditions, a slow-moving
> vehicle, including a passenger vehicle, behind which five or more
> vehicles are formed in line, shall turn off the roadway at the nearest
> place designated as a turnout by signs erected by the authority having
> jurisdiction over the highway, or wherever sufficient area for a safe
> turnout exists, in order to permit the vehicles following it to
> proceed. As used in this section a slow-moving vehicle is one which is
> proceeding at a rate of speed less than the normal flow of traffic at
> the particular time and place.
>
> Face it, there's no legal justification for Sloth driving in the
> carpool lane. If you want to drive slow, move over to the rightmost
> lane where you belong.

So you use the definition in 21651 to claim that only 21656
applies. This is the stupidest one yet.

Scott en Aztl=E1n wrote:
> On 27 May 2005 19:04:01 -0700, wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Scott en Aztl=E1n wrote:
> >> On 27 May 2005 08:23:02 -0700, wrote:
> >>
> >> >> >Keep the pace with whom?
> >> >>
> >> >> With the normal speed of traffic, of course.
> >> >
> >> >Normal speed of traffic is 25, or less.
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> >No ****, Sherlock.
> >
> >When the rest of the traffic is going 25, that's the normal speed!
>
> Uh, no.

Uh, yeah. Just because you want to go 80, that doesn't mean that you
get to define that as "normal speed."

Of course, you seem to be trying to use two different conditions
interchangeably to support your argument: Free-flow in all general
purpose lanes, and very heavy traffic conditions. In the former,
there's no need for HOV lane use, because there is no advantage to
using it. In the latter, pretty much any car in the HOV lane is
passing.

But hey, don't let any facts get in the way of a good story, right?

E=2EP.

Scott en Aztl=E1n wrote:
> On 28 May 2005 15:44:37 -0700, wrote:
>
> >the law does not require such people already doing 65 or
> >so to exit the HOV lanes for people doing 90.
>
> Suppose you are in the HOV lane doing 65. Traffic in the #1 lane to
> your immediate right is doing 75. There is a car behind you who wishes
> to drive 75, but is being blocked by you. Does the law require you to
> leave the HOV lane?


Why do you keep bringing up this red herring?

Nobody but you is even contemplating this idiotic scenario. The
scenario being contemplated is the one with general-purpose lanes
moving well under the posted limit. In free-flow conditions, what
happens in the HOV lane is of no concern at all. Pass left, keep
right, avoid the HOV lane entirely.

Why is this concept so difficult for you to grasp?

E=2EP.

Scott en Aztl=E1n wrote:
> On 27 May 2005 22:15:30 -0700, wrote:
>
> >Scott en Aztl=E1n wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> How did "lane" become "group?"

Hmmm. Are you ever the only car on the road? "Fastest car in a group"
refers to the fastest driver among a group of drivers in the lane. As I
said, it is not possible for the fastest car among a group of cars to
also be going the same speed as all others. Think about it. If he was
going the same speed as all others, he would not be the fastest.

> If the normal speed of traffic in all lanes is 75, and you're in the
> HOV lane doing 65, and there is one car behind you in the HOV lane
> doing 75...

Point one: Because the HOV lanes operate separately from the GPs, it is
interesting but to relevant to the law how fast or slow traffic is in
the the GPs. But for the sake of discussion, if the HOV and GP lanes
are moving at the same basic rate and there is a slower person in the
HOV lane (65 vs 75), he still doesn't have to bail out. KRETP isn't
applicable to the HOV lane/GP lane transition. It only applies in a
multi-lane single direction HOV facility.

> then a) the car behind you doing 75 MPH is the fastest car
> in the lane,

No, he's going the normal speed of traffic. He's no faster than the
others except the one going slower than the normal speed. "Fastest"
means you are faster than everyone else. In your example, the 75mph
driver is going the same speed as all others except one -- who would
then be the "slowest."

> and b) you need to get the **** out of the way.

No he doesn't. If the GP lanes are going 75 as you posit, I'd suggest
that you ought to bail out into the GP system and go with that flow,
where KRETP is applicable.

Scott en Aztl=E1n wrote:
> On Sun, 29 May 2005 04:55:54 GMT, "Craig Holl"
> >Well so far you're the only one (out of more than a dozen) in this thread
> >that has stated that the HOV lanes are a part of the GP lanes.
>
> However, unlike everyone else in this thread, I have no problem
> changing my position when confronted with compelling evidence.

Becaus eyou have finally come around to the reality of the situation
does not mean that we must also therefire be wrong about something to
balance things out. Show us the same sort of compelling evidence, and
we would have to alter our positions as well.

> I now
> accept the assertion that the HOV lane is a separate "road" for the
> purposes of KRETP.
>
> Of course, now that the HOV "road" is a separate wo-lane road, Sloths
> are required by law to yield to faster traffic approaching from the
> rear by using the "turnouts" (i.e. the breaks in the yellow barrier
> lines designed to permit entry to and exit from the carpool lanes).

No they are not. The exit points of HOV lanes are not "turn outs" under
the two-lane road slow-traffic law. The driver isn't compelled to exit
from the HOV system to what you now acknowledge is a different portion
of the roadway. If that were to be true, then on a genuine two-lane
road, a driver would have to turn onto a road he doesn't want to take
in order to comply.

I don't think you're going to be able to rationalize your way into
turning a car-pool lane into the Scott from Aztan Speedway.