HOV lane behavior...

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

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

I agree on most points here, but you are about to get several
posters telling you that you should be shot for blocking any
car at any time. Failing to observe the established 85% speed
of 140 mph is a death penalty offense.

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?


--
~/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)

> 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 think they call it "sarcasm"....

Froggie

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

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)

"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)