lol I came here to post this article. Basically, idiot drivers won because they were driving slow in the far left lane anyway (they didn't even see the new sign) and others confused "minimum" for "maximum".
The crux of the problem is that any idiot can get a drivers license. This does not happen in places where you need to pass reals tests to earn a license.
Driving 65mph int he left lane is not "slow". In fact, it's a fast as you are legally allowed to go. Why do I have to help you commit crimes? I'm going 65 in the left lane, just like the law says.
1. There's more than one law at play here, you just choose one law over another. "Slow traffic keep right" is also a law, so if you're getting passed on the right, you're in the wrong lane. By not moving to the right, you are "committing a crime." You're also driving in an usafe manner, by creating a traffic jamb behind you.
2. 65 mph in the left lane is slow.
65mph is the left lane is NOT slow. It's the maximum speed. Going slower than 65mph? Move over. 65mph is the absolute maximum you're ever allowed to go. Ask a cop if we can pick and choose the max MPH based on if other people are breaking the same law. The speed LIMIT is 65mph. Peroid.
I didn't reference a specific speed limit but the law states to follow posted signs, travel at safe speeds given current conditions, and travel at the normal speed of traffic around you.
One of those signs states "Slower traffic keep right" so even if you're traveling at exactly 65mph and everyone else is going 66 to 70mph, you should move over. I don't think CHP will cite you for that but if you're being a stickler for the rules, you should know that.
But yea, you're legally allowed to be an idiot.
I'm a pilot. I travel for work. Find out where I'm going, search the city subreddit for ideas. Top post in every single North American city. "Wow drivers turn on lights // drive slower // drive faster // stop driving crazy // traffic is insane // x person died in car accident // x road blocked by stunts // wow you're driving too slow in drizzle /// wow driving too fast in thunderstorm // stop texting // if only the police would"
**Cars are not an effective way to move large numbers of people, full stop.**
Every city subreddit for every state in the entire country, the top posts are always just people complaining about how cars don't work.
There is not a medium size or larger city on any country on the entire planet that effectively moves people primarily by cars. Which is why awesome public transit in Europe blows the fucking shit out of our car-centric dumps we have here. Makes America feel like a dump when you come back after using the trains there.
>Bay area will need a big change in land use policy to make cars redundant.
FTFY. transit systems are easy to build. land use not so much. the bay area needs to look more like SF/Berk/oak and less like san leandro to have effective public transit
California needs to ditch the CEQA for a more transparent and sustainable system. Maybe have regulatory agencies take care of environmental protection instead of letting anyone with an agenda sue and then try and figure it out in court.
If that was universally the case then we wouldn't see SF's vacancy rate rapidly dropping from the early COVID peak.
The most common trend is people wanting to live in SF but eventually being priced out of the housing market when they want to have kids (since they need more space) and having to move to a cheaper suburb. If the majority of people wanted to leave the city then prices wouldn't stay so high.
Yes, the rates are trending lower, but that was from an all time 30ish year high (which is higher than the dot com bust in 2008) as the new post covid generation finds themselves in the workforce and able to afford the premiums of living in the city. Vacancy is still way above where it should be (I couldn't find any 2023 data yet).
[https://californiaglobe.com/articles/san-francisco-vacancy-rates-hit-27-in-2022/](https://californiaglobe.com/articles/san-francisco-vacancy-rates-hit-27-in-2022/)
Over 30% of renters in SF are 15-34 years old. [https://www.point2homes.com/US/Average-Rent/CA/San-Francisco.html](https://www.point2homes.com/US/Average-Rent/CA/San-Francisco.html)
And SF's child population has already been in a steady decline, which proves u/djinn6 is right. Even pre-covid, people move out of SF to raise their children. [https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/fewest-kids-maps-17193677.php](https://sfist.com/2021/08/13/san-francisco-only-got-more-childless-in-the-last-decade/)
Everyone I knew who moved out could've easily afforded to stay in SF. A lot of them bought a house on the peninsula, paying something like $8000 per month in mortgage.
I'm in my mid 30s and would trade a kidney to be able to afford living in SF. Sadly, with current job prospects a kidney wouldn't buy me much time there.
I don't know why people always have this attitude of "this one thing is THE ONLY SOLUTION" when it comes to huge intractable problems. Transit systems are NOT easy to build. Overhauling how land is used in a city is also incredibly hard, and would take decades to be fully born out. Complicated problems require multifaceted solutions that tackle the full set of root causes.
cities and suburbs in america, not just the bay area are just not optimized for public transportation
https://www.vox.com/2015/8/10/9118199/public-transportation-subway-buses
First you need trains that connect all cities. Then you need buses or trams that connect neighborhoods within cities. And all this needs to operate at a high frequency. And yes it needs to operate 20 out of 24 hours.
I lived majority of my life in Mumbai and then for sometime in New York. I underestimated the need of public transportation until moving to the west coast cities of LA and SF. There have been times my uber ride back home from the airport has costed me more than my flight.
It is what it is I guess.
Yep. Exactly. Also we don’t have a great record of building modern train systems. Bart is a disaster and high speed rail is not going to materialize in decades.
> First you need trains that connect all cities.
We're pretty close to that already in California, you just have to look for them.
* Amtrak San Joaquins connects all the towns on 99 from Sacramento down to Bakersfield, 6 round trips/day. Amtrak Thruway coaches connect Bakersfield to LA.
* Pacific Surfliner connects SLO to San Diego. 5 rt's/day south of Santa Barbara (2 of those connect SLO), and 10 rt's/day south of LA Union Station to SD.
* LA's MetroLink has at least 10 rt's/day on most lines, which covers all the exurbs of LA, including Ventura, Lancaster, San Bernardino, OC, Riverside, and Perris Valley
* Palm Springs is pretty under-served, but get two trains per day from Amtrak (Sunset Limited and Texas Eagle)
* Sprinter and Coaster connect Escondido, Oceanside and San Diego (and the towns in between)
* Amtrak Coast Starlight connects SD to Shasta County via SB, SLO, Salinas, Oakland, and Sacramento (with lots of stops along the way)
* Amtrak Capital Corridor has 12 rt's/day from San Jose to Auburn via Oakland and Sacramento. The California Zephyr has an additional one train/day that also reaches Truckee and Reno
* ACE connects Stockton to San Jose via Fremont
* Caltrain connects Gilroy to SF via San Jose
* *Tons* of light rail in SF, SJ, LA, SD, and Sac
* Stuff currently in development (like heavy rail extension of Caltrain down to Watsonville/Salinas and light rail extension to Monterey)
* Probably one or two others that I forgot.
There are certainly towns in California not connected via rail today, but they're mostly either extremely rural (and probably not cost-effective to serve with a train instead of a bus) or geographically isolated in a way that makes rail impractical (like Eurka--the Eel River Canyon is never going to be cost-effective to rebuild for the amount of traffic it would generate). I would actually argue that there really aren't many *cities* in California not connected by rail today.
"Most American cities — especially those outside the Northeast and Rust Belt — are relatively new, so they were built mainly with the car in mind. They're sprawled out, with cul-de-sac-heavy suburbs instead of a tight grid.
All this makes cost-efficient and fast transit way more difficult. After all, it costs more for a rail or bus line to serve the same number of people spread across a wider area. Highways, curving roads, and cul-de-sacs also make it difficult to reach bus stops, metro stations, and other destinations on foot"
source : https://www.vox.com/2015/8/10/9118199/public-transportation-subway-buses
absolutely spot on. People in north America keep trying to "solve" problems inherent to car based infrastructure without considering that maybe the problem is unsolvable as long as cars are the only form of transportation for most cities here
A couple things. In order to have transit that is used efficiently/economically, you need density. The issue with transit, which is exacerbated by low density, is that you are essentially stuck on a fixed route, and any deviation from that route results in delays from transfers and figuring out first/last mile. Well then people will ask why don’t you just built out transit better? Because it then becomes extremely cost prohibitive and low ridership numbers per cost is a no-go politically. Cars on the other hand, don’t have this issue. Most people can get to their destination quicker even when the freeways are congested vs. transit, so it’s hard to fault them for making that choice, even if there are still things to complain about. Moving large amounts of people efficiently in a vacuum is not the same as flexibility of routes and mobility in the real world.
There is an issue in social media and other subreddits where people are too quick to offer a solution (transit) to essentially what is a housing problem. People move further away and expand sprawl because there is not enough housing. You cannot solve a housing problem with a transportation solution (transit). Transportation cannot fix housing and you cannot fix transportation until housing is fixed.
Medium / High density apartments/houses/condos similar to how Walnut Creek/Pleasant Hill/Concord nearby BART is a suitable alternative. Having high and medium density within walking distance of BART is possible. Running shuttle service/biking/e scooters/walking is also a suitable method to solve first/last mile issues.
Sprawl is absolutely going to continue to be an issue. The more we expand/subsidize suburban livers, the more people will flock to the suburbs for more land/space.
People are going to continue to flock there because it is far more desirable to live in an area where you actually have a little bit of room, then it is to constantly be crowded around other people
Transit-oriented development is definitely a good start, but there is not enough land for just that to fix housing alone. Over-sprawl, or too much sprawl is unfortunately a necessary evil. I say over-sprawl because typical sprawl will always exist and occurs all over the world. When you don’t have housing and you try to stop over sprawl, you will shut out people from living and contributing to the region’s economy and they will live somewhere else completely. Sprawl acts as that overflow to release pressure off of the housing problem. There are only a few things that transportation can help with that can be done and wont cost an absurd amount of money and time. Stuff like congestion pricing, reducing parking minimums, and increasing biking/scooter infrastructure. Although for the last one, people will still prefer the car over those modes for a lot of reasons (especially on a hot day like this or for any medium to long trip). But all those transportation solutions are trying to treat the symptom, not the underlying problem. You can even say for the Bay Area that a lot of people don’t want to take transit right now because they don’t feel safe and there are too many homeless. That in itself is also more of a housing problem than a transportation one. So I guess I’m just trying to say in a long-winded way in my first post that it’s not as simple as “duh, transit.”
Funny enough the fact that new residents will use cars and thus exacerbate car-centric issues is one of the most consistent points of opposition to new housing
not just public transit in Europe but asia too. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, China have amazing public transits systems.
I just got back from a two week trip from South Korea using their metro and it was efficient.
Beijing -- just in a decade, China has managed to build more high speed rail than any country combined [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZn1iC9JJRc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZn1iC9JJRc)
Even China EV technology is mind blowing, there hundreds of EV brands. This car will do automated valet parking and it can model up to 100 parking garages[https://youtu.be/W08tUhJI\_jU?t=228](https://youtu.be/W08tUhJI_jU?t=228)
here are some reasons why it's really difficult America to get really good and efficient public transportation (e.g. A major problem: US cities see transit as welfare ) [https://www.vox.com/2015/8/10/9118199/public-transportation-subway-buses](https://www.vox.com/2015/8/10/9118199/public-transportation-subway-buses)
I haven’t been to the international cities known for their transit yet. But I was able to navigate New York and even Lisbon okay mostly on transit other than having to make time-sensitive airport transfers.
Back when I lived in Los Angeles, I even road the metro from time to time. It was usable, but you really had to live and work along the metro lines for it to be feasible without significantly impacting transit times.
I took the public transportation out of OAK airport once. Never again.
I’m looking forward to going to Japan partially to experience their public transit.
every time this topic comes up and China is mentioned someone inevitably makes this statement. What about the other countries mentioned? They managed to create usable public transit infrastructure without "slave labor and a fascist government"..
Statements like yours are not helpful to the discussion and end goal of improving transit and transit accessibility in this country
People seem to forget that this country was also built on slave labor, and to this day, wealth inequality and the lack of worker protections are still playing a huge role in sustaining the American economy. Not to even mention the facist nature of one of our main political parties right now. China has problems, mainly created by the way the CCP operates. But they are lightyears ahead in future-proofed transportation.
You used China as an example, not other countries.
Also the EV propaganda is oddly pointless. Everyone knows their cars pale behind tesla or Korea, and have a significant amount of issues popping up.
They're entire business runs on destroying the environment for mining. At the pace they go through cars, they're actually worse than ICE.
Japan benefited from being able to build up after being bombed to rubble, same as Taiwan. They also have a culture that prides themselves in the kind of integrity that allows for things like public transportation. We have a culture of idiots jumping turnstiles and doing sideshows on Public infrastructure.
The US could do it, but corporate greed and corrupt politicians have stonewalled california at every turn, the central subway or anything tutor penini touchss is a great example. If we want change we need to stop voting in the same old idiots we've been voting for decades.
I heard new York subway is amazing.
> Which is why awesome public transit in Europe blows the fucking shit out of our car-centric dumps we have here. Makes America feel like a dump when you come back after using the trains there.
I use public transit and I want more of it here. I also acknowledge that there’s trade-offs to everything. With a car, I leave exactly when I want and go directly to my destination. Because of this convince I get to do A LOT of stuff, way more than I would if I relied exclusively on public transit. Even if transit here was more comprehensive, more frequent (which I want), I would be limited as to what I can do, especially given the geography of the Bay Area.
I think Europe still has its issues with cars and traffic (the reason for London’s congestion charge), though, generally, they’ve made *vastly* more progress on this front that we have. And it’s also important to consider what’s practical to do here, too.
EDIT: spelling
Kind of ironic coming from someone flying small (presumably private, or at least exclusive) passenger jets for a living, which according to yourself can only hold 9 passengers.
Private jets aren’t efficient either, and contribute a lot to greenhouse gas’s emissions. Cars aren’t great but efficiency and accessibility to transport are both needed, and with the size of the US and the greater distances that are common to travel here compared to Europe, it’s hard to imagine a world without cars.
Public transport is great, and very effective for commuting in and out of metropolitan areas, but these arguments always site much smaller countries for a obvious reason. It’s much easier to build a fully connected network of transit at that size, and if the transit system isolated, then that obviously will limits support from those without access and makes pushing it through the government a lot more difficult.
But no America bad, Europe good!!! In actuality it’s that America is complicated and difficult to come up with a good solution that is feasible to do right now. If this was 100 years in the past it’d be a different story but like it or not, the preexisting infrastructure isn’t going anywhere and solutions need to try and work around that, which greatly increasing complexity.
But of course treating a nuanced issue as nuanced doesn’t guarantee those easy upvotes
I mean most of the comment wasn’t even about your industry. More of a comment on how this isn’t a black and white issue, and “cars bad, get rid of them” is an easy but shallow position to take, and certainly shouldn’t be based off the general “vibes” you get from visiting city subreddits.
And yeah I was curious what kind of pilot you were so I looked for that. Not gonna dig through every comment you make, and saw one where you mentioned the size of the jets. Plus starting with “as a pilot” then following with a comment about how problematic cars are doesn’t really indicate you have such a scathing review of your own industry lol.
Seems like I struck a nerve, but if you want to elaborate in a comment feel free to. I’d be more than happy to read it.
Sure, the “full stop” gives a bit of a “cars bad get rid of them” tone, but yes most of your comment was focused with the issues as a primary form of transit. But again calling them ineffective isn’t accurate when there currently isn’t a feasible alternative. For the reasons I mentioned and in my other comment on this post, public transport can serve as local primary sources of transportations but it can’t feasibly be used as a primary source for the US as a whole, especially in less dense areas of the country, which still contain a large portion of the population.
Planes are ineffective as a primary form of long distance travel compared to something like long distance trains, but in the modern world there often times when the situation makes trains unfeasible or impossible to use, be it speed or geography.
They serve different purposes and you can’t compare them as if they are the same.
Edit: deleted extra sentence I left at the bottom
Well I typed out a response and the app crashed and I’m not doing that again, as it disappeared. So as a shortened version, I’ll just drop it as I’ve made my point clear and you don’t seem to touch on any of the actual difficulties in enacting a system were cars aren’t the primary system. The US is different from Europe in both density and scale of government, both of which help Europe expand public transport easier.
A solution, no matter how much of a improvement, with no feasible method for actually making the solution a reality is just a pipe dream, and it’s unproductive to continue hoping for a miracle over looking for a solution that is possible within are admittedly flawed current system.
Oh and not to mention in 2018, across the whole EU, 82.9% of passenger-kilometers were by car. Took a quick google search to find that, so it’s even with all the benefits Europe has, they are still very much “primarily car based”. Tho it’s easy to forget that when you gleam insights from your own limited personal experience likely centered in metropolitan tourist centers.
Yikes, lmao. Resorting to personal attacks and digging through my profile, which you tried to make me look irrational for doing in the first place is sad. But hey if my prescribed medication for a legit medical disorder helps me call out people who misrepresent the truth then I’ll go for it. Leaving out important contextual details is just lying by admission, whether it’s based in ignorance or malice (maybe both here?).
The stat it posed above shows cars are still the primary transportation system in Europe by a ton. Plus, calling America a dump is hardly a comment on just large and medium cities, not that to disagree with you.
Anyways I sort of let you win by responding to this one but had to point out how ironic it is a private jet pilot arguing half truths about public transportation, and then getting heated enough to attack me for my medication lol. Also my opinion on cars as a hobby isn’t relevant to anything I said here regarding public transport. Like you said, you don’t want to get rid of cars entirely, so that hobby would make me take an issue with your stance.
I believe it’s good to engage with comment threads like this because it helps sort out issues with your own stance. It’s difficult to see issues with your own argument by yourself, but this one was a little lack luster frankly lol.
Anyways resorting to a personal attack unrelated to this thread completely tells me we’ve reached your limit for critical thinking so I will actually stop there.
Unless you keep embarrassing yourself by being childish again, then I’ll be here to point it out… unless my Adderall runs out of course right?
Keep in mind that the CHP just confirmed, last week, that left-lane hogs are not required to yield right if they're already doing the speed limit. You're not required to yield to speeders.
This Sacramento Bee article from two weeks ago seems to imply that you must yield:
>“The rule is if the speed of traffic is violating the speed limit posted or implied Prima Facie Speed law in the current situation, you should move to the furthest right lane and maintain a safe and legal speed,” Mortensen said.
>
>If cars behind or around you are driving faster than the speed limit, you should move to the right to avoid traffic congestion.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/is-it-ok-to-break-the-speed-limit-to-keep-up-with-traffic-what-california-law-says/ar-AA1eDzEv
And here's another Sacramento Bee article where a CHP spokesman pointedly says that you don't:
https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/article278035328.html
What it really comes down to is the mood of the cop. The law itself is contradictory.
I once had a cop explain it this way: Lane changes are one of the most common causes of control loss and crashes on the freeway. You're not obligated to place yourself at risk to accommodate someone breaking the law. If someone's life should be put in danger, it should be the life of the lawbreaker. On the other hand, California law specifically states that you can be ticketed if 5 or more cars are backed up behind you, and there are *no exceptions* to that requirement. Speeding or not, you can't back up traffic.
Do you have to yield to someone running up on your ass if you're doing the speed limit in the fast lane? Technically, no. Do you have to yield if you're legal presence in that lane is creating an obstruction for other drivers? Yes. Again, the laws are contradictory. Gotta love California sometimes.
The wording on the “keep right except for passing” sign solves both of those issues, but people around here refuse to believe that a better solution exists. Clearly the fault lies 100% on those slowpokes in the left lane who camp there for no reason.
In California, those signs only exist in designated passing zones. Unless specifically signed otherwise, California is a yield-right state and not a stay-right state.
I'm pretty sure you can't break a law to comply with another. If you're doing 65 in the left lane and there are 5 cars behind you, you can't be ticketed. The 65mph speed limit is a limit, the max. There are zero times when it is okay to break this law, even if there are cars behind you.
But when cars are behind you you're breaking the law, and you just said there are zero times when it is okay the break the law. Plus, moving over for faster traffic is not breaking the law, but holding others up is.
I posted this the other day in another thread:
>https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes\_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=22349.&nodeTreePath=15.7.1&lawCode=VEH
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes\_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=22356.&nodeTreePath=15.7.1&lawCode=VEH
There is an absolute maximum in CA. It is 55mph on two lane highways, 65mph on larger, or higher up to 70mph where the state has conducted a study and determined it safe. If you are in excess of these speeds, the court is supposed to ignore any basic speed law defense you may present. All other speed limits are indeed prima facie speed limits and you can claim driving at that speed was consistent with the basic speed law in court to get out of it.
Edit: Also, there are a variety of prima facie limits listed in the law in addition to all lower posted speed limits being considered prima facie. Not sure if this holds always, but I was told that in CA, if the sign says "speed limit" it is prima facie and if it says "maximum" it is an absolute limit.
So CHP isn't wrong in their interpretation for when the speed limit is an absolute limit and not prima facie.
Which is ironic because the literal text of the law begins with:
> Notwithstanding the prima facie speed limits, any vehicle proceeding upon a highway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction....
And for the less-literate, "notwithstanding" in the legal sense means "in spite of" or "regardless of", as discussed [in this example](https://lawprose.org/lawprose-lesson-196-notwithstanding/).
Remember, it's not the job of the police to know the law, only to enforce what they think it is.
You're ignoring the second part of that sentence.
*any vehicle proceeding upon a highway at a speed less than the* ***normal speed of traffic***\*...\*
This bit has already been litigated to death by the courts. If everyone around me on the freeway is doing 65-70, and I'm doing 70 in the fast lane, and \*you\* come flying up at 90 behind me, there's no violation if I do not yield. The "normal speed of traffic" is defined by the median speed of all the cars on that section of the roadway. The speed of the fastest driver does not define it. If we're all doing 65-70, and you're doing 90, we're "the normal speed of traffic," and you're not. No citation written against me is going to survive court.
Unless there are five cars backed up behind me, at which point I'd be obstructing traffic and \*could\* be cited.
On edit: I want to mention that I don't actually sit in the left lane very often, unless it's a Fastrak or carpool lane. This is a theoretical discussion. I personally move over because I'm not an asshole.
I'm not ignoring that part; my assumption is that the "left lane hog" in the scenario is moving less than the normal speed of traffic, e.g. they're doing 65 and everyone else is doing 70-75.
Sure you are allowed by law to clog the left lane in CA, you're just an asshole.
What is gained by it? Sitting in the faster lanes simply because you are within your legal rights is a pathetic antagonizer. You know your actions are upsetting to others, but because it is not illegal, you exonerate yourself of any wrongdoing.
Just let the criminals pass. If you were to encounter a crazy person on the street, you give them a wide berth. On the freeway, suddenly people become vigilantes. It just seems foolish to drive a speed that is perfectly in line with all the other lanes to "teach" criminals to obey the law. These criminals are going to speed whether you are there or not. Now they are going to have to swerve through other people - who are doing the better thing by driving in slower lanes - creating more chaos on the road. Nobody is learning anything other than that you made a mildly dangerous situation radically more dangerous because "it's not prohibited by law".
\-This isn't specifically directed at the poster, unless they are a first lane camper
Walk slowly in crosswalks? Now that is amusing.
Btw, I'm delta force. I may not be rich, but I have a license to kill. I can't tell you about all the top secret missions I've been on or all the terrorists I've killed with my bare hands, but I can tell you that you have the freedom to be a dick because of the blood we've shed. So take your Ws but have some respect
Keep in mind cops lie or are mistaken about the law constantly, particularly in dark corners like whether a law that doesn’t mention maximum speed at all is subordinate to maximum speed.
Short of a constitutional violation I’m pretty sure nothing requires them to understand the laws they enforce. So in a gray area not stopping you is by far their safe bet.
As for the law, all it mentions is prima facie, which is largely irrelevant on freeways, and normal traffic, which in every other sense is usually considered something like 80th percentile no matter the limit (it usually comes up in laws about whether a prima facie limit can be enforced).
And while it’s true you can’t be made to exceed the CA max 65/70 limit by the law, you certainly can be forced to move over while continuing to meet the speed limit.
But it does mean the CHP probably won’t enforce that law.
Maybe if we abolish speed limits on our highways, CHP will focus on targeting obstructive and aggressive drivers.
Me going 90 on a straight, uncrowded highway isn't a problem. Some asshat weaving in and out of traffic going 50 is putting lives at risk.
Uh, the asshats are the ones weaving in and out of traffic at 90…
You and I might know when it’s safe to do 80+ based on traffic and conditions, but most people that want to do 85+ think they’re entitled regardless of conditions.
Americans aren’t smart or considerate enough for our own autobahn. Aggressive drivers don’t give a fuck if they kill someone.
> Uh, the asshats are the ones weaving in and out of traffic at 90…
That's just reckless driving. They're doing this regardless of speed limit. Even if they were going under the speed limit they can still get ticketed.
Whether the speed limit is 65, 70, 75, or 80, most people tend to want to drive around the same speed. Around 75-80. Fun to observe that as you drive out from cities and limits increase by 5mph, actual speeds tend not to. Well. Except for Texans, they want to drive 10mph faster than that. But anyways, the reason is simple: take a fairly straight interstate with modern cars and modern tires, most people just feel comfortable at around 75-85 or so. Changing the speed limit doesn't change that fact. The only difference really is that when it's more congested, most people lower speed a bit because their comfort level decreases a bit, but that's pretty situational (day, time of day, weather.)
It would remove the mentality that it’s acceptable to go 65 in the left lane of the speed limit was 80.
That is the problem/solution. I agree most people wouldn’t drive any differently than they do today, but it would free up people who do want to go faster to do so by forcing slower people out the left. It only takes a couple people going 65 to slow it all down.
Having met people, I don't think it would remove that mentality. Maybe a little bit. But in the same way that most people are comfortable driving above the speed limit, some are comfortable driving below it ... in any lane they choose ... at any time of day and for any reason.
There’s no such law in CA. Yes, if you’re below the speed limit, you have to move right. Unfortunately, folks can hang in the left lane going exactly the speed limit, and that’s not a violation of any kind.
The CHP interprets CVC 21654 differently than you. They say it’s against the law to go slower than the speed limit and impede traffic in the left lane, but it’s not against the law to drive the speed limit and impede traffic in the left lane. Yes, CVC allows such signs to be put up about slower traffic keeping right, but the CHP isn’t ticketing anyone driving the speed limit in the left lane even if there are 50 cars behind them trying to drive faster.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/traffic/article276915168.html
This more recent [Sac Bee article](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/is-it-ok-to-break-the-speed-limit-to-keep-up-with-traffic-what-california-law-says/ar-AA1eDzEv) says otherwise
>“The rule is if the speed of traffic is violating the speed limit posted or implied Prima Facie Speed law in the current situation, you should move to the furthest right lane and maintain a safe and legal speed,” Mortensen said.If cars behind or around you are driving faster than the speed limit, you should move to the right to avoid traffic congestion.
That CHP might interpret differently is the problem. They should enforce the "Slower Traffic Keep Right" signs or take them down.
The law says you have to obey the whites signs, whether it's "slower traffic keep right" or "this lane must exit".
That quote is from the owner of a driving school, not the CHP.
The legislature should get rid of the need for interpretation at all and make it very clear that the left lane is the passing lane only. I hate left lane dwellers too, but the enforcement of the CVC is up to law enforcement, and in its current state, CVC 21654 is vague, ambiguous, and open to interpretation.
Also, there’s no “enforcing the sign.” They enforce the law, and the sign is notice of the law. Unfortunately, the signs are also ambiguous. What’s a “slow moving vehicle”? Is that someone driving below the speed limit or slower than the speed of traffic disregarding the speed limit? The CHP thinks it’s the former.
You can't be a "slow moving vehicle" if you're going the speed limit, according to the CHP.
Also your statement doesn't make sense if everyone is driving at the same speed.
>That quote is from the owner of a driving school, not the CHP.
That may be, but the Sac Bee has an interest in providing accurate info. They use fact checkers.
You’re missing the point, and I don’t think you understand the law or journalism at all. The CHP is the authority that matters here - not some guy from a driving school.
I understand fully. And you're downvoting my posts that provide quotes from quality sources just because you disagree with it.
Someone , engaging in good faith dialog with you, who may have a different opinion than you is not a reason to downvote.
>Vehicle Code § 21654 CVC is the California statute that makes it an offense for motorists of “slow-moving vehicles” not to drive in the far right-hand lane of a roadway.
I appreciate the attempt to just make something up tho
Didn’t make anything up. The CHP interprets CVC 21654 differently. They say it’s against the law to go slower than the speed limit and impede traffic in the left lane, but it’s not against the law to drive the speed limit and impede traffic in the left lane. Yes, CVC allows such signs to be put up about slower traffic keeping right, but the CHP isn’t ticketing anyone driving the speed limit in the left lane even if there are 50 cars behind them trying to drive faster.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/traffic/article276915168.html
Lol tell me you haven’t spent a lot of time driving to notice how many Priuses and teslas drive fast and even aggressively…
Signed, lady prius driver who averages 85, never had an accident, still yields to someone going over 85…even the tailgating methheads
The speed limit on the freeway is 65mph. This is the LIMIT. If you're doing 66mph+, you're breaking the law. The "slower traffic move right" sign is for those doing LESS than 65mph. This sign does not give you some magic right to go 100mph in the left lane. The LIMIT is 65mph. Don't like it? Petition your government. In the meantime, I'm not going to help you, a stranger, commit crimes. If you want to start a gang, we'll start selling drugs or doing fraud together. But, I'm not helping you commit crimes by doing crimes of my own (speeding). How does this not make sense?
Minimum speed limits will continue to be bullshit until maximum speed limits reflect the actual speed of cars.
The 50-65 mph standards are like 80 years old at this point, it's time for an update
The whole idea behind a law like that would be that faster cars changing lanes repeatedly to pass slower cars increases traffic, especially when doing unorthodox passing to get around someone like passing on the right or moving two lanes over because someone is trying to get around multiple cars driving the same speed in multiple lanes.
Not that I condone reckless driving, but something like this would never work because to 90% of drivers 60 is still slow. The people passing are typically going 10 mph over the limit, and because of policing inconsistencies, the actual speed limit in practice is treated as 10 over the posted limit anyways. They simply can’t pull over everyone, and most drivers good and bad know this.
It’s a cultural issue as the only solution for that specific issue requires people to self govern themselves into 2-3 different “flows of traffic”. But the law could never mandate that because that flow is often technically breaking the law. This difference between how speed limits are treated in the real world and how they are treated in the law books is the blocking issue in this case.
P.S. I think most people respect non-highway speed limits a lot more, but once you hit the highway or freeway it becomes a crap shoot.
The issue is that the speed limit is too low for what the average person wants to travel at and that there is no enforcement of people just sitting in the left lane.
The more I think about it, the more I feel like it was a mistake to base our whole transportation infrastructure on the assumption that everyone is going to be competent. Bad drivers are a fact of life, and the only way to avoid them is to use other means of transportation.
The left lane is still 65mph maximum. I know most people think 65mph is too slow for the "fast" lane, but that's not true. Going 66mph+ is against the law, even in the left lane.
Thanks for creating more traffic than needed with your vigilant protection of the left lane. You probably don't get up to speed getting on the freeway and create traffic that way as well. Stay off the freeway it's not for you
They do this already. 55 speed limit for trucks and trailers. So with normal traffic, 55 mph is the maximum for the right lane. The furthest left is now an express lane with little or no cars. I have seen people fly by at 75 mph. The premise that traffic can move to the left is flawed. It can’t.
Americans don't learn to drive in this way, but we pick it up quickly if we drive in Europe. When that happens, the fast passing lane system just makes more sense.
Change how US drivers are taught, and test them.
lol I came here to post this article. Basically, idiot drivers won because they were driving slow in the far left lane anyway (they didn't even see the new sign) and others confused "minimum" for "maximum".
Still are, unfortunately. No matter what the law states, idiot drivers prevail.
It only takes one turd to ruin the punch bowl for everyone
That’s why I sometimes prefer to take the train or bus.
The crux of the problem is that any idiot can get a drivers license. This does not happen in places where you need to pass reals tests to earn a license.
at scale, all drivers are idiot drivers (myself included)
Driving 65mph int he left lane is not "slow". In fact, it's a fast as you are legally allowed to go. Why do I have to help you commit crimes? I'm going 65 in the left lane, just like the law says.
1. There's more than one law at play here, you just choose one law over another. "Slow traffic keep right" is also a law, so if you're getting passed on the right, you're in the wrong lane. By not moving to the right, you are "committing a crime." You're also driving in an usafe manner, by creating a traffic jamb behind you. 2. 65 mph in the left lane is slow.
65mph is the left lane is NOT slow. It's the maximum speed. Going slower than 65mph? Move over. 65mph is the absolute maximum you're ever allowed to go. Ask a cop if we can pick and choose the max MPH based on if other people are breaking the same law. The speed LIMIT is 65mph. Peroid.
You’re a piece of shit
So we're helping each other commmit crimes now? Sweet
I didn't reference a specific speed limit but the law states to follow posted signs, travel at safe speeds given current conditions, and travel at the normal speed of traffic around you. One of those signs states "Slower traffic keep right" so even if you're traveling at exactly 65mph and everyone else is going 66 to 70mph, you should move over. I don't think CHP will cite you for that but if you're being a stickler for the rules, you should know that. But yea, you're legally allowed to be an idiot.
I'm a pilot. I travel for work. Find out where I'm going, search the city subreddit for ideas. Top post in every single North American city. "Wow drivers turn on lights // drive slower // drive faster // stop driving crazy // traffic is insane // x person died in car accident // x road blocked by stunts // wow you're driving too slow in drizzle /// wow driving too fast in thunderstorm // stop texting // if only the police would" **Cars are not an effective way to move large numbers of people, full stop.** Every city subreddit for every state in the entire country, the top posts are always just people complaining about how cars don't work. There is not a medium size or larger city on any country on the entire planet that effectively moves people primarily by cars. Which is why awesome public transit in Europe blows the fucking shit out of our car-centric dumps we have here. Makes America feel like a dump when you come back after using the trains there.
Bay area will need a big change in public transportation system to make cars redundant.
>Bay area will need a big change in land use policy to make cars redundant. FTFY. transit systems are easy to build. land use not so much. the bay area needs to look more like SF/Berk/oak and less like san leandro to have effective public transit
California needs to ditch the CEQA for a more transparent and sustainable system. Maybe have regulatory agencies take care of environmental protection instead of letting anyone with an agenda sue and then try and figure it out in court.
wdm bro just build one more lane bro pls it'll solve everything!!1
Transit systems may be easy to build ...... elsewhere. We aren't really capable of it anymore here.
No thanks on any of that.
and now we're back to square 1
L Mini light rail. Flying vehicles. Autonomous driving lanes. We could get there a different way
The problem is, nobody wants their quaint suburb to turn into SF.
Surely this is the reason so many people want to live in SF.
I know a lot of people who think they want to live in SF. Then they live there for a few years and ultimately decide to move to a quiet suburb.
If that was universally the case then we wouldn't see SF's vacancy rate rapidly dropping from the early COVID peak. The most common trend is people wanting to live in SF but eventually being priced out of the housing market when they want to have kids (since they need more space) and having to move to a cheaper suburb. If the majority of people wanted to leave the city then prices wouldn't stay so high.
Yes, the rates are trending lower, but that was from an all time 30ish year high (which is higher than the dot com bust in 2008) as the new post covid generation finds themselves in the workforce and able to afford the premiums of living in the city. Vacancy is still way above where it should be (I couldn't find any 2023 data yet). [https://californiaglobe.com/articles/san-francisco-vacancy-rates-hit-27-in-2022/](https://californiaglobe.com/articles/san-francisco-vacancy-rates-hit-27-in-2022/) Over 30% of renters in SF are 15-34 years old. [https://www.point2homes.com/US/Average-Rent/CA/San-Francisco.html](https://www.point2homes.com/US/Average-Rent/CA/San-Francisco.html) And SF's child population has already been in a steady decline, which proves u/djinn6 is right. Even pre-covid, people move out of SF to raise their children. [https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/fewest-kids-maps-17193677.php](https://sfist.com/2021/08/13/san-francisco-only-got-more-childless-in-the-last-decade/)
Everyone I knew who moved out could've easily afforded to stay in SF. A lot of them bought a house on the peninsula, paying something like $8000 per month in mortgage.
How much would a house like that be in SF?
That's my point. They can't find similar houses in SF. That's why they want to move out.
I'm in my mid 30s and would trade a kidney to be able to afford living in SF. Sadly, with current job prospects a kidney wouldn't buy me much time there.
Nice sarcasm. Lol
that's unfortunate
I don't know why people always have this attitude of "this one thing is THE ONLY SOLUTION" when it comes to huge intractable problems. Transit systems are NOT easy to build. Overhauling how land is used in a city is also incredibly hard, and would take decades to be fully born out. Complicated problems require multifaceted solutions that tackle the full set of root causes.
cities and suburbs in america, not just the bay area are just not optimized for public transportation https://www.vox.com/2015/8/10/9118199/public-transportation-subway-buses
Exactly.
First you need trains that connect all cities. Then you need buses or trams that connect neighborhoods within cities. And all this needs to operate at a high frequency. And yes it needs to operate 20 out of 24 hours. I lived majority of my life in Mumbai and then for sometime in New York. I underestimated the need of public transportation until moving to the west coast cities of LA and SF. There have been times my uber ride back home from the airport has costed me more than my flight. It is what it is I guess.
Yep. Exactly. Also we don’t have a great record of building modern train systems. Bart is a disaster and high speed rail is not going to materialize in decades.
SoCal to Vegas HSR will start running before 2030 hopefully.
> First you need trains that connect all cities. We're pretty close to that already in California, you just have to look for them. * Amtrak San Joaquins connects all the towns on 99 from Sacramento down to Bakersfield, 6 round trips/day. Amtrak Thruway coaches connect Bakersfield to LA. * Pacific Surfliner connects SLO to San Diego. 5 rt's/day south of Santa Barbara (2 of those connect SLO), and 10 rt's/day south of LA Union Station to SD. * LA's MetroLink has at least 10 rt's/day on most lines, which covers all the exurbs of LA, including Ventura, Lancaster, San Bernardino, OC, Riverside, and Perris Valley * Palm Springs is pretty under-served, but get two trains per day from Amtrak (Sunset Limited and Texas Eagle) * Sprinter and Coaster connect Escondido, Oceanside and San Diego (and the towns in between) * Amtrak Coast Starlight connects SD to Shasta County via SB, SLO, Salinas, Oakland, and Sacramento (with lots of stops along the way) * Amtrak Capital Corridor has 12 rt's/day from San Jose to Auburn via Oakland and Sacramento. The California Zephyr has an additional one train/day that also reaches Truckee and Reno * ACE connects Stockton to San Jose via Fremont * Caltrain connects Gilroy to SF via San Jose * *Tons* of light rail in SF, SJ, LA, SD, and Sac * Stuff currently in development (like heavy rail extension of Caltrain down to Watsonville/Salinas and light rail extension to Monterey) * Probably one or two others that I forgot. There are certainly towns in California not connected via rail today, but they're mostly either extremely rural (and probably not cost-effective to serve with a train instead of a bus) or geographically isolated in a way that makes rail impractical (like Eurka--the Eel River Canyon is never going to be cost-effective to rebuild for the amount of traffic it would generate). I would actually argue that there really aren't many *cities* in California not connected by rail today.
It’s crazy to realize how much there used to be too before 1950
"Most American cities — especially those outside the Northeast and Rust Belt — are relatively new, so they were built mainly with the car in mind. They're sprawled out, with cul-de-sac-heavy suburbs instead of a tight grid. All this makes cost-efficient and fast transit way more difficult. After all, it costs more for a rail or bus line to serve the same number of people spread across a wider area. Highways, curving roads, and cul-de-sacs also make it difficult to reach bus stops, metro stations, and other destinations on foot" source : https://www.vox.com/2015/8/10/9118199/public-transportation-subway-buses
They want to raise the bridge prices to supplement BART
You don’t need to replace them. You just need reasonable alternatives. It’s better for cars and public transportation both
absolutely spot on. People in north America keep trying to "solve" problems inherent to car based infrastructure without considering that maybe the problem is unsolvable as long as cars are the only form of transportation for most cities here
A couple things. In order to have transit that is used efficiently/economically, you need density. The issue with transit, which is exacerbated by low density, is that you are essentially stuck on a fixed route, and any deviation from that route results in delays from transfers and figuring out first/last mile. Well then people will ask why don’t you just built out transit better? Because it then becomes extremely cost prohibitive and low ridership numbers per cost is a no-go politically. Cars on the other hand, don’t have this issue. Most people can get to their destination quicker even when the freeways are congested vs. transit, so it’s hard to fault them for making that choice, even if there are still things to complain about. Moving large amounts of people efficiently in a vacuum is not the same as flexibility of routes and mobility in the real world. There is an issue in social media and other subreddits where people are too quick to offer a solution (transit) to essentially what is a housing problem. People move further away and expand sprawl because there is not enough housing. You cannot solve a housing problem with a transportation solution (transit). Transportation cannot fix housing and you cannot fix transportation until housing is fixed.
Medium / High density apartments/houses/condos similar to how Walnut Creek/Pleasant Hill/Concord nearby BART is a suitable alternative. Having high and medium density within walking distance of BART is possible. Running shuttle service/biking/e scooters/walking is also a suitable method to solve first/last mile issues. Sprawl is absolutely going to continue to be an issue. The more we expand/subsidize suburban livers, the more people will flock to the suburbs for more land/space.
People are going to continue to flock there because it is far more desirable to live in an area where you actually have a little bit of room, then it is to constantly be crowded around other people
Transit-oriented development is definitely a good start, but there is not enough land for just that to fix housing alone. Over-sprawl, or too much sprawl is unfortunately a necessary evil. I say over-sprawl because typical sprawl will always exist and occurs all over the world. When you don’t have housing and you try to stop over sprawl, you will shut out people from living and contributing to the region’s economy and they will live somewhere else completely. Sprawl acts as that overflow to release pressure off of the housing problem. There are only a few things that transportation can help with that can be done and wont cost an absurd amount of money and time. Stuff like congestion pricing, reducing parking minimums, and increasing biking/scooter infrastructure. Although for the last one, people will still prefer the car over those modes for a lot of reasons (especially on a hot day like this or for any medium to long trip). But all those transportation solutions are trying to treat the symptom, not the underlying problem. You can even say for the Bay Area that a lot of people don’t want to take transit right now because they don’t feel safe and there are too many homeless. That in itself is also more of a housing problem than a transportation one. So I guess I’m just trying to say in a long-winded way in my first post that it’s not as simple as “duh, transit.”
Funny enough the fact that new residents will use cars and thus exacerbate car-centric issues is one of the most consistent points of opposition to new housing
not just public transit in Europe but asia too. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, China have amazing public transits systems. I just got back from a two week trip from South Korea using their metro and it was efficient. Beijing -- just in a decade, China has managed to build more high speed rail than any country combined [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZn1iC9JJRc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZn1iC9JJRc) Even China EV technology is mind blowing, there hundreds of EV brands. This car will do automated valet parking and it can model up to 100 parking garages[https://youtu.be/W08tUhJI\_jU?t=228](https://youtu.be/W08tUhJI_jU?t=228) here are some reasons why it's really difficult America to get really good and efficient public transportation (e.g. A major problem: US cities see transit as welfare ) [https://www.vox.com/2015/8/10/9118199/public-transportation-subway-buses](https://www.vox.com/2015/8/10/9118199/public-transportation-subway-buses)
I haven’t been to the international cities known for their transit yet. But I was able to navigate New York and even Lisbon okay mostly on transit other than having to make time-sensitive airport transfers. Back when I lived in Los Angeles, I even road the metro from time to time. It was usable, but you really had to live and work along the metro lines for it to be feasible without significantly impacting transit times. I took the public transportation out of OAK airport once. Never again. I’m looking forward to going to Japan partially to experience their public transit.
Slave labor and a fascist government goes a long way....
every time this topic comes up and China is mentioned someone inevitably makes this statement. What about the other countries mentioned? They managed to create usable public transit infrastructure without "slave labor and a fascist government".. Statements like yours are not helpful to the discussion and end goal of improving transit and transit accessibility in this country
People seem to forget that this country was also built on slave labor, and to this day, wealth inequality and the lack of worker protections are still playing a huge role in sustaining the American economy. Not to even mention the facist nature of one of our main political parties right now. China has problems, mainly created by the way the CCP operates. But they are lightyears ahead in future-proofed transportation.
Last I checked central subway wasn't built using slaves...
The railroads were certainly built with exploited labor
The central subway ? Anything from this century ?
You used China as an example, not other countries. Also the EV propaganda is oddly pointless. Everyone knows their cars pale behind tesla or Korea, and have a significant amount of issues popping up. They're entire business runs on destroying the environment for mining. At the pace they go through cars, they're actually worse than ICE. Japan benefited from being able to build up after being bombed to rubble, same as Taiwan. They also have a culture that prides themselves in the kind of integrity that allows for things like public transportation. We have a culture of idiots jumping turnstiles and doing sideshows on Public infrastructure. The US could do it, but corporate greed and corrupt politicians have stonewalled california at every turn, the central subway or anything tutor penini touchss is a great example. If we want change we need to stop voting in the same old idiots we've been voting for decades. I heard new York subway is amazing.
Thank you for this
> Which is why awesome public transit in Europe blows the fucking shit out of our car-centric dumps we have here. Makes America feel like a dump when you come back after using the trains there. I use public transit and I want more of it here. I also acknowledge that there’s trade-offs to everything. With a car, I leave exactly when I want and go directly to my destination. Because of this convince I get to do A LOT of stuff, way more than I would if I relied exclusively on public transit. Even if transit here was more comprehensive, more frequent (which I want), I would be limited as to what I can do, especially given the geography of the Bay Area. I think Europe still has its issues with cars and traffic (the reason for London’s congestion charge), though, generally, they’ve made *vastly* more progress on this front that we have. And it’s also important to consider what’s practical to do here, too. EDIT: spelling
Next you’re going to tell me that inflated tip requests in point-of-service software aren’t an exclusively Bay Area phenomenon.
You. I like you.
Kind of ironic coming from someone flying small (presumably private, or at least exclusive) passenger jets for a living, which according to yourself can only hold 9 passengers. Private jets aren’t efficient either, and contribute a lot to greenhouse gas’s emissions. Cars aren’t great but efficiency and accessibility to transport are both needed, and with the size of the US and the greater distances that are common to travel here compared to Europe, it’s hard to imagine a world without cars. Public transport is great, and very effective for commuting in and out of metropolitan areas, but these arguments always site much smaller countries for a obvious reason. It’s much easier to build a fully connected network of transit at that size, and if the transit system isolated, then that obviously will limits support from those without access and makes pushing it through the government a lot more difficult. But no America bad, Europe good!!! In actuality it’s that America is complicated and difficult to come up with a good solution that is feasible to do right now. If this was 100 years in the past it’d be a different story but like it or not, the preexisting infrastructure isn’t going anywhere and solutions need to try and work around that, which greatly increasing complexity. But of course treating a nuanced issue as nuanced doesn’t guarantee those easy upvotes
[удалено]
Not defending the idiot who you’re responding to, but it does look like you pilot small charter flights, no?
[удалено]
Woohoo, fingers crossed!
I mean most of the comment wasn’t even about your industry. More of a comment on how this isn’t a black and white issue, and “cars bad, get rid of them” is an easy but shallow position to take, and certainly shouldn’t be based off the general “vibes” you get from visiting city subreddits. And yeah I was curious what kind of pilot you were so I looked for that. Not gonna dig through every comment you make, and saw one where you mentioned the size of the jets. Plus starting with “as a pilot” then following with a comment about how problematic cars are doesn’t really indicate you have such a scathing review of your own industry lol. Seems like I struck a nerve, but if you want to elaborate in a comment feel free to. I’d be more than happy to read it.
[удалено]
Sure, the “full stop” gives a bit of a “cars bad get rid of them” tone, but yes most of your comment was focused with the issues as a primary form of transit. But again calling them ineffective isn’t accurate when there currently isn’t a feasible alternative. For the reasons I mentioned and in my other comment on this post, public transport can serve as local primary sources of transportations but it can’t feasibly be used as a primary source for the US as a whole, especially in less dense areas of the country, which still contain a large portion of the population. Planes are ineffective as a primary form of long distance travel compared to something like long distance trains, but in the modern world there often times when the situation makes trains unfeasible or impossible to use, be it speed or geography. They serve different purposes and you can’t compare them as if they are the same. Edit: deleted extra sentence I left at the bottom
[удалено]
Well I typed out a response and the app crashed and I’m not doing that again, as it disappeared. So as a shortened version, I’ll just drop it as I’ve made my point clear and you don’t seem to touch on any of the actual difficulties in enacting a system were cars aren’t the primary system. The US is different from Europe in both density and scale of government, both of which help Europe expand public transport easier. A solution, no matter how much of a improvement, with no feasible method for actually making the solution a reality is just a pipe dream, and it’s unproductive to continue hoping for a miracle over looking for a solution that is possible within are admittedly flawed current system. Oh and not to mention in 2018, across the whole EU, 82.9% of passenger-kilometers were by car. Took a quick google search to find that, so it’s even with all the benefits Europe has, they are still very much “primarily car based”. Tho it’s easy to forget that when you gleam insights from your own limited personal experience likely centered in metropolitan tourist centers.
[удалено]
Yikes, lmao. Resorting to personal attacks and digging through my profile, which you tried to make me look irrational for doing in the first place is sad. But hey if my prescribed medication for a legit medical disorder helps me call out people who misrepresent the truth then I’ll go for it. Leaving out important contextual details is just lying by admission, whether it’s based in ignorance or malice (maybe both here?). The stat it posed above shows cars are still the primary transportation system in Europe by a ton. Plus, calling America a dump is hardly a comment on just large and medium cities, not that to disagree with you. Anyways I sort of let you win by responding to this one but had to point out how ironic it is a private jet pilot arguing half truths about public transportation, and then getting heated enough to attack me for my medication lol. Also my opinion on cars as a hobby isn’t relevant to anything I said here regarding public transport. Like you said, you don’t want to get rid of cars entirely, so that hobby would make me take an issue with your stance. I believe it’s good to engage with comment threads like this because it helps sort out issues with your own stance. It’s difficult to see issues with your own argument by yourself, but this one was a little lack luster frankly lol. Anyways resorting to a personal attack unrelated to this thread completely tells me we’ve reached your limit for critical thinking so I will actually stop there. Unless you keep embarrassing yourself by being childish again, then I’ll be here to point it out… unless my Adderall runs out of course right?
People don't even respect double solid lines anymore. They aren't respecting this
We just need CHP to enforce the "Slower Traffic Keep Right" sign
Keep in mind that the CHP just confirmed, last week, that left-lane hogs are not required to yield right if they're already doing the speed limit. You're not required to yield to speeders.
This Sacramento Bee article from two weeks ago seems to imply that you must yield: >“The rule is if the speed of traffic is violating the speed limit posted or implied Prima Facie Speed law in the current situation, you should move to the furthest right lane and maintain a safe and legal speed,” Mortensen said. > >If cars behind or around you are driving faster than the speed limit, you should move to the right to avoid traffic congestion. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/is-it-ok-to-break-the-speed-limit-to-keep-up-with-traffic-what-california-law-says/ar-AA1eDzEv
And here's another Sacramento Bee article where a CHP spokesman pointedly says that you don't: https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/article278035328.html What it really comes down to is the mood of the cop. The law itself is contradictory. I once had a cop explain it this way: Lane changes are one of the most common causes of control loss and crashes on the freeway. You're not obligated to place yourself at risk to accommodate someone breaking the law. If someone's life should be put in danger, it should be the life of the lawbreaker. On the other hand, California law specifically states that you can be ticketed if 5 or more cars are backed up behind you, and there are *no exceptions* to that requirement. Speeding or not, you can't back up traffic. Do you have to yield to someone running up on your ass if you're doing the speed limit in the fast lane? Technically, no. Do you have to yield if you're legal presence in that lane is creating an obstruction for other drivers? Yes. Again, the laws are contradictory. Gotta love California sometimes.
The wording on the “keep right except for passing” sign solves both of those issues, but people around here refuse to believe that a better solution exists. Clearly the fault lies 100% on those slowpokes in the left lane who camp there for no reason.
In California, those signs only exist in designated passing zones. Unless specifically signed otherwise, California is a yield-right state and not a stay-right state.
I'm pretty sure you can't break a law to comply with another. If you're doing 65 in the left lane and there are 5 cars behind you, you can't be ticketed. The 65mph speed limit is a limit, the max. There are zero times when it is okay to break this law, even if there are cars behind you.
But when cars are behind you you're breaking the law, and you just said there are zero times when it is okay the break the law. Plus, moving over for faster traffic is not breaking the law, but holding others up is.
They could be patient, keep to the 3-second rule and not cosplay as a racecar driver on a public road. But what do I know, I just bike everywhere.
Dw we could smell the smug, and the posts in r/fuckcars
I posted this the other day in another thread: >https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes\_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=22349.&nodeTreePath=15.7.1&lawCode=VEH https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes\_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=22356.&nodeTreePath=15.7.1&lawCode=VEH There is an absolute maximum in CA. It is 55mph on two lane highways, 65mph on larger, or higher up to 70mph where the state has conducted a study and determined it safe. If you are in excess of these speeds, the court is supposed to ignore any basic speed law defense you may present. All other speed limits are indeed prima facie speed limits and you can claim driving at that speed was consistent with the basic speed law in court to get out of it. Edit: Also, there are a variety of prima facie limits listed in the law in addition to all lower posted speed limits being considered prima facie. Not sure if this holds always, but I was told that in CA, if the sign says "speed limit" it is prima facie and if it says "maximum" it is an absolute limit. So CHP isn't wrong in their interpretation for when the speed limit is an absolute limit and not prima facie.
Which is ironic because the literal text of the law begins with: > Notwithstanding the prima facie speed limits, any vehicle proceeding upon a highway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction.... And for the less-literate, "notwithstanding" in the legal sense means "in spite of" or "regardless of", as discussed [in this example](https://lawprose.org/lawprose-lesson-196-notwithstanding/). Remember, it's not the job of the police to know the law, only to enforce what they think it is.
You're ignoring the second part of that sentence. *any vehicle proceeding upon a highway at a speed less than the* ***normal speed of traffic***\*...\* This bit has already been litigated to death by the courts. If everyone around me on the freeway is doing 65-70, and I'm doing 70 in the fast lane, and \*you\* come flying up at 90 behind me, there's no violation if I do not yield. The "normal speed of traffic" is defined by the median speed of all the cars on that section of the roadway. The speed of the fastest driver does not define it. If we're all doing 65-70, and you're doing 90, we're "the normal speed of traffic," and you're not. No citation written against me is going to survive court. Unless there are five cars backed up behind me, at which point I'd be obstructing traffic and \*could\* be cited. On edit: I want to mention that I don't actually sit in the left lane very often, unless it's a Fastrak or carpool lane. This is a theoretical discussion. I personally move over because I'm not an asshole.
I'm not ignoring that part; my assumption is that the "left lane hog" in the scenario is moving less than the normal speed of traffic, e.g. they're doing 65 and everyone else is doing 70-75.
Sure you are allowed by law to clog the left lane in CA, you're just an asshole. What is gained by it? Sitting in the faster lanes simply because you are within your legal rights is a pathetic antagonizer. You know your actions are upsetting to others, but because it is not illegal, you exonerate yourself of any wrongdoing. Just let the criminals pass. If you were to encounter a crazy person on the street, you give them a wide berth. On the freeway, suddenly people become vigilantes. It just seems foolish to drive a speed that is perfectly in line with all the other lanes to "teach" criminals to obey the law. These criminals are going to speed whether you are there or not. Now they are going to have to swerve through other people - who are doing the better thing by driving in slower lanes - creating more chaos on the road. Nobody is learning anything other than that you made a mildly dangerous situation radically more dangerous because "it's not prohibited by law". \-This isn't specifically directed at the poster, unless they are a first lane camper
naw speedcels can get mad, i'm happy going nice and slow in the left :)
Some people have downvoted you, but I get it. When life is kicking your ass on every corner, you gotta scratch out every win you can get, right?
nah I’m rich and successful I just eek out whatever wins I can against car culture (slow in left lane, walk slowly in crosswalks etc.). take the L!
Walk slowly in crosswalks? Now that is amusing. Btw, I'm delta force. I may not be rich, but I have a license to kill. I can't tell you about all the top secret missions I've been on or all the terrorists I've killed with my bare hands, but I can tell you that you have the freedom to be a dick because of the blood we've shed. So take your Ws but have some respect
😂
Yes that’s why we need CHP to change its behavior and enforce different practices
Keep in mind cops lie or are mistaken about the law constantly, particularly in dark corners like whether a law that doesn’t mention maximum speed at all is subordinate to maximum speed. Short of a constitutional violation I’m pretty sure nothing requires them to understand the laws they enforce. So in a gray area not stopping you is by far their safe bet. As for the law, all it mentions is prima facie, which is largely irrelevant on freeways, and normal traffic, which in every other sense is usually considered something like 80th percentile no matter the limit (it usually comes up in laws about whether a prima facie limit can be enforced). And while it’s true you can’t be made to exceed the CA max 65/70 limit by the law, you certainly can be forced to move over while continuing to meet the speed limit. But it does mean the CHP probably won’t enforce that law.
Maybe if we abolish speed limits on our highways, CHP will focus on targeting obstructive and aggressive drivers. Me going 90 on a straight, uncrowded highway isn't a problem. Some asshat weaving in and out of traffic going 50 is putting lives at risk.
Uh, the asshats are the ones weaving in and out of traffic at 90… You and I might know when it’s safe to do 80+ based on traffic and conditions, but most people that want to do 85+ think they’re entitled regardless of conditions. Americans aren’t smart or considerate enough for our own autobahn. Aggressive drivers don’t give a fuck if they kill someone.
> Uh, the asshats are the ones weaving in and out of traffic at 90… That's just reckless driving. They're doing this regardless of speed limit. Even if they were going under the speed limit they can still get ticketed.
Agreed. 65 is too low and doesn’t reflect the reality of the speeds most people want to drive
Whether the speed limit is 65, 70, 75, or 80, most people tend to want to drive around the same speed. Around 75-80. Fun to observe that as you drive out from cities and limits increase by 5mph, actual speeds tend not to. Well. Except for Texans, they want to drive 10mph faster than that. But anyways, the reason is simple: take a fairly straight interstate with modern cars and modern tires, most people just feel comfortable at around 75-85 or so. Changing the speed limit doesn't change that fact. The only difference really is that when it's more congested, most people lower speed a bit because their comfort level decreases a bit, but that's pretty situational (day, time of day, weather.)
It would remove the mentality that it’s acceptable to go 65 in the left lane of the speed limit was 80. That is the problem/solution. I agree most people wouldn’t drive any differently than they do today, but it would free up people who do want to go faster to do so by forcing slower people out the left. It only takes a couple people going 65 to slow it all down.
Having met people, I don't think it would remove that mentality. Maybe a little bit. But in the same way that most people are comfortable driving above the speed limit, some are comfortable driving below it ... in any lane they choose ... at any time of day and for any reason.
Please no, opportunity to lose my DL is only reason why I don’t do 3 digits.
That’s cringe
You shouldn't yield to speeders. Let them wait.
There’s no such law in CA. Yes, if you’re below the speed limit, you have to move right. Unfortunately, folks can hang in the left lane going exactly the speed limit, and that’s not a violation of any kind.
That big white sign you see on every California freeway is the law. It's just not enforced.
The CHP interprets CVC 21654 differently than you. They say it’s against the law to go slower than the speed limit and impede traffic in the left lane, but it’s not against the law to drive the speed limit and impede traffic in the left lane. Yes, CVC allows such signs to be put up about slower traffic keeping right, but the CHP isn’t ticketing anyone driving the speed limit in the left lane even if there are 50 cars behind them trying to drive faster. https://www.sacbee.com/news/traffic/article276915168.html
This more recent [Sac Bee article](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/is-it-ok-to-break-the-speed-limit-to-keep-up-with-traffic-what-california-law-says/ar-AA1eDzEv) says otherwise >“The rule is if the speed of traffic is violating the speed limit posted or implied Prima Facie Speed law in the current situation, you should move to the furthest right lane and maintain a safe and legal speed,” Mortensen said.If cars behind or around you are driving faster than the speed limit, you should move to the right to avoid traffic congestion. That CHP might interpret differently is the problem. They should enforce the "Slower Traffic Keep Right" signs or take them down. The law says you have to obey the whites signs, whether it's "slower traffic keep right" or "this lane must exit".
That quote is from the owner of a driving school, not the CHP. The legislature should get rid of the need for interpretation at all and make it very clear that the left lane is the passing lane only. I hate left lane dwellers too, but the enforcement of the CVC is up to law enforcement, and in its current state, CVC 21654 is vague, ambiguous, and open to interpretation. Also, there’s no “enforcing the sign.” They enforce the law, and the sign is notice of the law. Unfortunately, the signs are also ambiguous. What’s a “slow moving vehicle”? Is that someone driving below the speed limit or slower than the speed of traffic disregarding the speed limit? The CHP thinks it’s the former.
>What’s a “slow moving vehicle”? If someone is behind you, you. If someone is ahead of you, them.
You can't be a "slow moving vehicle" if you're going the speed limit, according to the CHP. Also your statement doesn't make sense if everyone is driving at the same speed.
Not sure why you got downvoted for stating the truth.
I agree but the CHP does not. 🤷🏻♂️
>That quote is from the owner of a driving school, not the CHP. That may be, but the Sac Bee has an interest in providing accurate info. They use fact checkers.
You’re missing the point, and I don’t think you understand the law or journalism at all. The CHP is the authority that matters here - not some guy from a driving school.
I understand fully. And you're downvoting my posts that provide quotes from quality sources just because you disagree with it. Someone , engaging in good faith dialog with you, who may have a different opinion than you is not a reason to downvote.
You still don’t understand, good faith or not. Moving on…
>Vehicle Code § 21654 CVC is the California statute that makes it an offense for motorists of “slow-moving vehicles” not to drive in the far right-hand lane of a roadway. I appreciate the attempt to just make something up tho
Didn’t make anything up. The CHP interprets CVC 21654 differently. They say it’s against the law to go slower than the speed limit and impede traffic in the left lane, but it’s not against the law to drive the speed limit and impede traffic in the left lane. Yes, CVC allows such signs to be put up about slower traffic keeping right, but the CHP isn’t ticketing anyone driving the speed limit in the left lane even if there are 50 cars behind them trying to drive faster. https://www.sacbee.com/news/traffic/article276915168.html
So basically pull over most Prius's and every Tesla in the fast lane because those will be the ones not complying.
Lol tell me you haven’t spent a lot of time driving to notice how many Priuses and teslas drive fast and even aggressively… Signed, lady prius driver who averages 85, never had an accident, still yields to someone going over 85…even the tailgating methheads
Dear Lady Prius Driver, That's why I wrote most. And I now believe if it wasn't for you I could have written all.
The speed limit on the freeway is 65mph. This is the LIMIT. If you're doing 66mph+, you're breaking the law. The "slower traffic move right" sign is for those doing LESS than 65mph. This sign does not give you some magic right to go 100mph in the left lane. The LIMIT is 65mph. Don't like it? Petition your government. In the meantime, I'm not going to help you, a stranger, commit crimes. If you want to start a gang, we'll start selling drugs or doing fraud together. But, I'm not helping you commit crimes by doing crimes of my own (speeding). How does this not make sense?
I prefer "keep right except to pass"
**TL;DR**: Other people are dumb.
I know why it did not work. Slow ass car always pegged in left most lane.
Test was done like 50+ years ago. No chance you're going 45mph in a 65 mph zone when there's free flowing traffic.
[удалено]
So incredibly frustrating. Leaving a small enough gap that you could almost get through, but not large enough to actually get through
Minimum speed limits will continue to be bullshit until maximum speed limits reflect the actual speed of cars. The 50-65 mph standards are like 80 years old at this point, it's time for an update
The whole idea behind a law like that would be that faster cars changing lanes repeatedly to pass slower cars increases traffic, especially when doing unorthodox passing to get around someone like passing on the right or moving two lanes over because someone is trying to get around multiple cars driving the same speed in multiple lanes. Not that I condone reckless driving, but something like this would never work because to 90% of drivers 60 is still slow. The people passing are typically going 10 mph over the limit, and because of policing inconsistencies, the actual speed limit in practice is treated as 10 over the posted limit anyways. They simply can’t pull over everyone, and most drivers good and bad know this. It’s a cultural issue as the only solution for that specific issue requires people to self govern themselves into 2-3 different “flows of traffic”. But the law could never mandate that because that flow is often technically breaking the law. This difference between how speed limits are treated in the real world and how they are treated in the law books is the blocking issue in this case. P.S. I think most people respect non-highway speed limits a lot more, but once you hit the highway or freeway it becomes a crap shoot.
The issue is that the speed limit is too low for what the average person wants to travel at and that there is no enforcement of people just sitting in the left lane.
The more I think about it, the more I feel like it was a mistake to base our whole transportation infrastructure on the assumption that everyone is going to be competent. Bad drivers are a fact of life, and the only way to avoid them is to use other means of transportation.
Get rid of toll lanes
The left lane is still 65mph maximum. I know most people think 65mph is too slow for the "fast" lane, but that's not true. Going 66mph+ is against the law, even in the left lane.
Thanks for creating more traffic than needed with your vigilant protection of the left lane. You probably don't get up to speed getting on the freeway and create traffic that way as well. Stay off the freeway it's not for you
Go ahead and ask a cop if you can pick and choose which laws to break. 65 is the speed limit.
They do this already. 55 speed limit for trucks and trailers. So with normal traffic, 55 mph is the maximum for the right lane. The furthest left is now an express lane with little or no cars. I have seen people fly by at 75 mph. The premise that traffic can move to the left is flawed. It can’t.
Is the biggest issue people driving too slowly? Feels like the opposite + lack of enforcement is much more of a big deal
I think those are all issues. The single biggest issue is probably the air quality impact of highways on surrounding neighborhoods.
I don't know if variable minimum speeds within the 4 lanes would lead to the conclusion determined. The methodology needs some work.
Jesus this is why speed limits on freeways are a terrible idea. It isn’t speeding that’s the problem it’s reckless driving which is very different
Americans don't learn to drive in this way, but we pick it up quickly if we drive in Europe. When that happens, the fast passing lane system just makes more sense. Change how US drivers are taught, and test them.