HOV lane behavior...

Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On Wed, 25 May 2005 12:25:39 GMT, "Craig Holl"
> > wrote:
>
>>If the main lanes are congested,
>
> ...and even if they're not...
>
>>the HOV lane(s) are basically a separate roadway.
>
>>And since in LA most of them are single lane, there can be no LLB
>>by definition.
>
> Technically true. However, even on one-lane (in each firection) roads,
> the law requires slower traffic to pull over and allow faster traffic
> to pass. Ona regular two-lane road, Sloths need to use the turnouts;
> on a freeway, Sloths need to get their asses out of the HOV lane at a
> marked exit and let faster traffic pass.

But, realistically, how? If the front motorist in the HOV lane is
only doing 65 and holding up a dozen others behind him, how can he
effectively pull into the 10 mph traffic on the regular lanes without
either: a) first nearly coming to a complete stop in the HOV lane in
order to switch into the nearly-stopped traffic, or b) cause a massive
pile-up which will make EVERYONE late for work...?

>>Now, if you weren't going at least the speed limit,
>>(assuming non-congested HOV lane) that would be kinda jerkish. But going 70
>>mph is fine.
>
> Wrong, Carl Taylor. YOU do not get to decide how fast other drivers
> should go. YOU need to obey the law and get out of the way of faster
> traffic, and leave the speed enforcement to the police.

You do realize that Craig Holl's name is Craig Holl, not Carl Taylor.
I believe Carl Taylor goes by the name "Carl Taylor"... or is there
a response from Carl I missed in all this? (If not, you responded
directly to Wisconsin's own Craig Holl, not Carl Taylor.)

Anyway, I still fail to see how someone can go from doing 65 mph in
the HOV lane to doing 10 mph in the regular lanes instantaneously
without causing much death and destruction in the process. Please
correct me if I'm wrong.

Later,
Chris

--
Chris Bessert

http://www.michiganhighways.org
http://www.wisconsinhighways.org
http://www.ontariohighways.org

"Garth Almgren" > wrote in message
...
> Around 5/24/2005 5:53 PM, william lynch wrote:
>
> > Failing to observe the established 85% speed
> > of 140 mph is a death penalty offense.
>
> You really have no idea how the 85th percentile method of establishing
> safe and sane speed limits works, do you?
>
Isn't it let 'em speed (don't post/enforce speed limits), then take 85% of
that as the new speed limit (so now it gets posted)?

But, that won't ever work--because now drivers will continue to call *that*
speed limit underposted. So it's back to let 'em speed, then take 85% of
that as the new speed limit, ad infinitum.

Which basically reduces to: let 'em speed, right?

Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
> "Garth Almgren" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Around 5/24/2005 5:53 PM, william lynch wrote:
> >
> > > Failing to observe the established 85% speed
> > > of 140 mph is a death penalty offense.
> >
> > You really have no idea how the 85th percentile method of establishing
> > safe and sane speed limits works, do you?
> >
> Isn't it let 'em speed (don't post/enforce speed limits), then take 85% of
> that as the new speed limit (so now it gets posted)?
>
> But, that won't ever work--because now drivers will continue to call *that*
> speed limit underposted. So it's back to let 'em speed, then take 85% of
> that as the new speed limit, ad infinitum.
>
> Which basically reduces to: let 'em speed, right?

Not quite... it's not post speed limit at 85% of travel speed, it's
post speed limit at the speed at or below which 85% of drivers are
traveling (rounded up to next 5 MPH increment.)

Actually, you have pretty much described how speed limits are set
around here... 65 MPH * (1/0.85) = 76.5 MPH which is about the speed
that most people are traveling! Heh, maybe they ARE using the 85th
percentile method, just not the right one!

A serious answer though... yes travel speeds can creep up over time
and that's to be expected. After all, don't cars accelerate, handle,
stop much better than their counterparts from a few decades ago?
Therefore drivers feel comfortable driving at higher speeds, because
overall their total risk hasn't increased.

nate

> Isn't it let 'em speed (don't post/enforce speed limits), then take 85% of
> that as the new speed limit (so now it gets posted)?
>
> But, that won't ever work--because now drivers will continue to call
> *that*
> speed limit underposted. So it's back to let 'em speed, then take 85% of
> that as the new speed limit, ad infinitum.
>
> Which basically reduces to: let 'em speed, right?
>
>

No. You take away all speed limits first. (no signs, no enforcement of any
type). Then you do a traffic survey to measure speeds people are actually
driving, in the total absence of a speed limit. Then you find the speed
that 85% of drivers (in the absence of a speed limit) are driving at OR
SLOWER. Let's say the actual 85th percentile speed is ~85MPH (very likely
in many areas). That would mean that only 15% of drivers would exceed that
particular speed under any circumstances (legal or otherwise)

Now the 85th percentile speed is unlikely to be a nice number like 85 or 90.
It is more likely to be an in-between like 77 or 82. In that case, round to
the nearest 5MPH, preferably in the upward direction.

If you do this, safety will be maximized and loss of property and life will
be minimized. Speed doesn't kill, it is speed differences that kill. Also,
posted speed limits do not have much of an effect on actual speeds driven,
other than the fact that some stupid drivers use an under-posted limit as an
excuse to drive in an unsafe manner. (in other words, if the 85th
percentile would be 80MPH but the posted limit is 55MPH, it is DANGEROUS to
obey the law, as it is creating greater speed differences)

Yeah, someone will argue that the 85th percenters doing 80 in a 55 are the
real problem. But the 55MPH speed limit (for example) didn't slow them
down, and it never will. You can't slow drivers down by under-posting a
road. The best you can do is post it correctly, if you are going to post it
at all. It isn't a perfect solution, but there is no perfect solution. If
you care about safety, you post limits at the 85th percentile. If you care
about maximizing both revenue and carnage, you pull a number out of your
ass, such as "55 saves lives". -Dave

Around 5/25/2005 10:41 AM, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:

> "Garth Almgren" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Around 5/24/2005 5:53 PM, william lynch wrote:
>>
>>>Failing to observe the established 85% speed
>>>of 140 mph is a death penalty offense.
>>
>>You really have no idea how the 85th percentile method of establishing
>>safe and sane speed limits works, do you?
>>
>
> Isn't it let 'em speed (don't post/enforce speed limits), then take 85% of
> that as the new speed limit (so now it gets posted)?

No.


> But, that won't ever work--because now drivers will continue to call *that*
> speed limit underposted. So it's back to let 'em speed, then take 85% of
> that as the new speed limit, ad infinitum.

No, that's the "automatic speed creep" fallacy, and is the same as
saying "People will *always* go XX MPH over the speed limit, no matter
what the limit is!" for various arbitrary values of XX.

In general, people drive at a speed they feel comfortable with. Changing
the posted speed limit has very little effect on that. See
http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel.html


> Which basically reduces to: let 'em speed, right?

Nope. It reduces to "Let them drive *legally* at a speed that most
everyone finds to be a comfortable and safe speed."


--
~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie.
Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave.
******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant."
for secure mail info) --H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

Around 5/25/2005 8:40 AM, william lynch wrote:

> Garth Almgren wrote:
>
>> Around 5/24/2005 5:53 PM, william lynch wrote:
>>
>>> Failing to observe the established 85% speed
>>> of 140 mph is a death penalty offense.
>>
>>
>> You really have no idea how the 85th percentile method of establishing
>> safe and sane speed limits works, do you?
>
>
> I have read a number of analyses. But my comment was directed at
> those here who use the idea as a justification for driving as fast
> as possible everywhere.

I don't think that I've ever read anyone fitting that description
posting here, aside from a couple trolls.

> For further info look up the dictionary definition of 'sarcasm'.

Sorry, my sarcasm detector must be on the fritz...

Though, good sarcasm is /so/ hard to pull off in a text-only environment.



--
~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie.
Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave.
******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant."
for secure mail info) --H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

My opinion is that the HOV lane is a completely seperate entity from
the regular lanes, even if there is no double white solid line
seperating the HOV and regular lanes. For example, Northern Virginia
has double dashed lines and you can enter and exit wherever you want.
If there is light traffic on the road, but the HOV restriction is in
effect (like way out in Manassas at 5AM or whenever the restriction
first kicks in), then you have the right to drive in that lane if you
have two people in your car. Keep right except to pass doesn't apply
since its a special lane. Now after the restrictions go away (if they
do), then the lane is just like any other left lane, so one should only
go into that lane if they are passing someone.

brink wrote:
> just wondering what people's thoughts are on this....
>
> in so. cal, the HOV lanes are restricted 24 hrs/day to 2+ occupants.
> exiting and entering the lanes are also restricted by solid white lines.
> there are dotted exit/entry areas every 1-3 miles that are pretty short
> (less than a quarter mile sometimes), especially for the volume, speed
> differential of traffic on routes with these lanes (i.e. HOV lanes cruising
> at 65-70 MPH while the rest of traffic stuck at less than 40) and bunches of
> cars moving in and out at those few allowed lane change points.
>
> in short, getting in and out of those HOV lanes at peak times can be a
> challenge, to say the least.
>
> anyway, my question is how strictly LLBing protocol should be applied to HOV
> lanes in y'all's opinions. i nearly always drive with a passenger and thus
> usually use the HOV lanes. i set the cruise at a nice 70MPH in these lanes
> whenever possible (they're signed at 65MPH) and will let any speedsters past
> when legal and possible, though sometimes there's no choice but to wait a
> mile or two until the beloved dotted line returns.
>
> the problem is during PEAK times when traffic is bumper to bumper in teh
> non-HOV lanes and going much slower than the sailing HOV traffic. letting
> the guy who wants to do 80+ pass can be dang near impossible because that
> maneuver usually requries waiting for the lane change zone and then SLAMMING
> on the brakes as i cut into the non-restricted lanes.
>
> this is probably putting too fine a point on it, but you get the picture.
> plus the fact that once you're out of the lanes, you've gotta get back IN,
> which can be tricky in said traffic, especially if you've used that whole
> dotted line zone just to find a slot to get out of the lane.
>
> i happen to think so. cal drivers are actually *more* courteous and sensible
> than the average driver in other areas of the country, contrary to popular
> belief. but every so often you get the uber-agressive tailgater types who
> will tailgate in the HOV lane with NOWHERE for me to legally get over to let
> them pass.
>
> my solution is usually to use a subtle "ruboff" maneuver of cancelling the
> cruise and letting my speed drop from 70 to about 60. and then accelerate
> hard back to 70. lather, rinse, repeat as necessary, usually the message is
> received with a minimum amount of ire and i avoid the confrontational "brake
> tap" warning. and i continue to look for the next possible place to get
> over.
>
> thoughts?
>
> brink

Mike Tantillo wrote:
> My opinion is that the HOV lane is a completely seperate entity from
> the regular lanes, even if there is no double white solid line
> seperating the HOV and regular lanes. For example, Northern Virginia
> has double dashed lines and you can enter and exit wherever you want.
> If there is light traffic on the road, but the HOV restriction is in
> effect (like way out in Manassas at 5AM or whenever the restriction
> first kicks in), then you have the right to drive in that lane if you
> have two people in your car. Keep right except to pass doesn't apply
> since its a special lane. Now after the restrictions go away (if they
> do), then the lane is just like any other left lane, so one should only
> go into that lane if they are passing someone.

I actually kind of agree with your point, and this is a major reason
why HOV lanes SUCK ASS. If they were done like "express" lanes are in
Ohio and other places, where there are *two* lanes each direction they
would make a lot more sense. But why would I want to trap myself in a
HOV lane just to get stuck behind some sloth...?

Of course it all depends on the courtesy of other drivers to make it
work... when I used to live in Ohio I'd often choose to stay in the
"local" lanes and mix it up with the big rigs as often the "express"
lanes would be clogged up by side-by-side sloths who couldn't figure
out the concept of driving lane/passing lane and I'd be stuck behind
them until the next exit, ten miles down the road...

nate

Scott en Aztl=E1n wrote:
> On 25 May 2005 17:08:51 -0700, "Mike Tantillo" >
> wrote:
>
> >Keep right except to pass doesn't apply since its a special lane.
>
> I just *love* how people make up rules to suit themselves...

How do you keep left in one lane? You really think swerving out to let
others past (while risking accidents) is the best idea, or are you just
trying to be a prick?

Dave

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
>
>>But, realistically, how? If the front motorist in the HOV lane is
>>only doing 65 and holding up a dozen others behind him, how can he
>>effectively pull into the 10 mph traffic on the regular lanes without
>>either: a) first nearly coming to a complete stop in the HOV lane in
>>order to switch into the nearly-stopped traffic, or b) cause a massive
>>pile-up which will make EVERYONE late for work...?
>
> Then this inconsiderate **** needs to a) speed the **** up, or b) not
> get into the HOV lane in the first place.
>
> 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.

for the most part i agree... but i dunno, it can be pretty hard to get in
and get out of the HOV lanes when the differential of speed is 40 MPH plus,
*especially* if you're going to let a bunch of people pass. personally,
when i'm behind someone who's doing 65 MPH in the HOV lanes, it's hard for
me told hold it against them when traffic in the fwy lanes is going 25 MPH.
it's pretty tough to get out to let me pass and then get back in again. i
figure that i'm glad to be moving at 40 MPH faster than the flow of regular
traffic and anything i get above that is gravy.

that's why i don't think the "you must *always* let faster traffic pass"
mantra just can't apply so dogmatically in HOV lanes... because in this
scenario the guy who's doing 80 MPH needs to cut into the 25 MPH traffic to
let the 90 MPH guy by. but unfortunately in doing so, one can lock oneself
into the fwy lanes without an entrance back onto the HOV lanes for quite a
long while, 3 miles or so. and that's 3 miles of stop and go traffic...

>>
>>>>Now, if you weren't going at least the speed limit,
>>>>(assuming non-congested HOV lane) that would be kinda jerkish. But
>>>>going 70
>>>>mph is fine.
>>>
>>> Wrong, Carl Taylor. YOU do not get to decide how fast other drivers
>>> should go. YOU need to obey the law and get out of the way of faster
>>> traffic, and leave the speed enforcement to the police.
>>
>>You do realize that Craig Holl's name is Craig Holl, not Carl Taylor.
>>I believe Carl Taylor goes by the name "Carl Taylor"... or is there
>>a response from Carl I missed in all this? (If not, you responded
>>directly to Wisconsin's own Craig Holl, not Carl Taylor.)
>>
>>Anyway, I still fail to see how someone can go from doing 65 mph in
>>the HOV lane to doing 10 mph in the regular lanes instantaneously
>>without causing much death and destruction in the process. Please
>>correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> Obviously you're just full of hyperbole. If it were really as
> difficult to accomplish as you say, then there would be a massive
> pileup every time someone in the carpool lane reached their exit.

this is true... my original scenario makes it sound like it's dang near
impossible to get out of the HOV lanes during rush hour, which of course
usually isn't true (though it sometimes is!).

the problem is of course the *massive* speed differential at times, we're
talking HOV running at 70 MPH while the fwy lanes are at stop and go. one
of the unfortunate side effects of this is that one has little choice at
times but to hit the brakes to change lanes while in the HOV lane, which
sucks for everyone involved, including those behind us. the trick is to
*gently* decelerate so there are no rear enders smashing into one another
when someone slams on the brakes to get out.

brink