Steve, Steve, Steve.... What do you THINK they are going to say on the phone?

One of the many points attempted here was what happens out there in the real world is often very different than on the phone.

I am not looking to change your mind here. I don't think anything is ever going to do that.

I was kinda hoping the many flaggers going by you or a peace officer who is seeing what is happening out there in the real world would. I have this mental picture of what happened last week as solace that it does sometimes happen. The multiple honking horns were expressing the frustration of the rest of the drivers who have had to deal with the problem and there wasn't a cop around.

I do not know what to say anymore. I cannot tell you to speed in order to keep up with the flow. No one can.

What I am saying is that you need to be aware of the flow around you, not just in your lane (whatever lane that is).

No one, in any lane, of any persuation, can block a lane and be legal. At any speed. That is the law. Chicken or egg?(pbs's max speed no matter what argument)...

Evidence (and a read of the law) suggests the "Slower Traffic Keep Right" trumps.

I almost never get PM's, probably because I stay away from the political rants and raves.

I got several yesterday morning from this thread. They ranged from 'go get him', 'what planet is that guy from', stuff like that. Then after the statement about "I don't give a rat's A$$' came out they turned. Maternal heritage was questioned. Political persuation was sullied.

I started to back off, knowing nothing I was going to say was going to make any difference. All I was doing was tieing up the phones in a Bay Area CHP office. But the point of the discussion kept getting lost.

I don't think Steve is unaware of what has been said. I think he is trying to tell his side as he sees it. I am aware that the carpool lanes in San Jose are on the right side of the road. I am aware that Steve is an 'over the hill liberal'... Even in a modern world, that is only one strike, and even that can be redeemed if caught early enough, haha. I get wrapped around the axle as much as anyone in here.

I ride a bike on freeways a lot. When I am home, I quite often commute to Las Vegas at least once a week. Sometimes (temps in the passes) on a bike. I get a lot of time on the freeway. It is the safest place to be on a bike. There is a reason I feel so comfortable there. Not the obvious ones.

No cell phone. No burger, fries and an open soft drink to worry about. No TV in the visor. No radio. No motor-mouthed passenger. No distractions.

You become hyper-aware of the hazards. Not just the debris. The real world hazards.

Someone blocking a lane (for whatever reason) IS the greatest danger on the freeway. Drunk? Even worse, but the plan is the same. Get away from them, they are going to cause an accident. They didn't realize it cuz the problem is all behind them. The guy back in the pack WITH the distractions is now gonna try and get around the rolling roadblock by any means. And now I am involved with drivers acting even more unpredictably stupid than normal. With no eacape except to get away from the problem up at the front of the pack.

I AM seeing this type of behaviour cited on the freeways of SoCal. Funny, typically by the bike CHP's. They are also hyper-aware of the same issue. Their duty as a motor officer is traffic. It's funny that they are as invisible as I am until it is too late. The dealership where I get my BMW bike serviced (Malcom Smith) has an ad up on the wall in the service department. It is a pic of a CHP officer standing next to his bike and saying the most often retort to them approaching a stopped motorist is "Where did you come from?"

All I'm asking here is that we all be aware of what is happening around us on the road. And, yes, I still learn things in here every day.

I would have thought everyone else would too.

Sorry there is no such thing as simple English is statutes.
1974 Amendment:
Substituted "Department of Transportation" for "State Department of Public Works" in subd (c).

That provision must be read in conjunction with VC§ 22400. Driving too slow; Minimum speed law

(a) No person shall drive upon a highway at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic unless the reduced speed is necessary for safe operation, because of a grade, or in compliance with law.

No person shall bring a vehicle to a complete stop upon a highway so as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic unless the stop is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law.

(b) Whenever the Department of Transportation determines on the basis of an engineering and traffic survey that slow speeds on any part of a state highway consistently impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, the department may determine and declare a minimum speed limit below which no person shall drive a vehicle, except when necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law, when appropriate signs giving notice thereof are erected along the part of the highway for which a minimum speed limit is established.

The move-over requirement is for vehicles moving slower than the normal flow of traffic.
The normal flow of traffic cannot eceed the CA basic spped law
The basic speed law cannot exceed the maximum speed limit of 65 mph.

Finally,
"A reasonably prudent driver of a vehicle traveling at the posted maximum speed limit does not owe a common law duty of ordinary care or a statutory duty to move his or her vehicle to the right into the next slower lane if another driver approaches from behind in the same lane at a speed in excess of the posted maximum speed limit. Plaintiff's decision to remain in the same lane while driving at the posted speed limit did not violate either Veh C § 22350 ("basic speed law") or Veh C § 22400 ("minimum speed law")." Monreal v Tobin (1998, 4th Dist) 61 Cal App 4th 1337, 72 Cal Rptr 2d 168.

pbs- that seems to seal it.

I don't drive that fast, but if I come across a slower driver (i.e. speed limit or just over) in the fast lane I just chill & cruise behind them at the limit. I don't see any reason to start getting pissed at someone driving legally & safely, just because they are costing me 5mph. I want them to move over, but if they don't I'm not going to start tailgating, revving the engine, laying on the horn, and generally driving like a maniac just because I'm not getting what *I* want. If I did start behaving that way its my fault , not some other drivers who isn't breakig the speed limit as much as I want.

The 'I am a great driver, always drive 90 safely and everyone better get the fuch outta my way!' attitude is at least as dangerous as the Mr Magoo types pottering along 10mph below the limit ambivalent to anything else. Something like 70% of drivers classify themselves as 'above average' in surveys, which probably helps to explain the 'I'm an expert so everyone who doesn't drive like me is wrong' mentality on the roads.

Somehow I don't think anyone here really resembles the Mr. Magoo stereotype, nor anyone here is really one of the me me me tailgating a**holes in reality!

In a separated car pool lane if the driver behind wants to go faster you must continue accelerating beyond the speed limit until you reach the speed that he is comfortable with (no matter how illegal)??? That is pretty weird- what if he wants to do 100 on a clear day? You just do it until you can merge right legally & risk the $500 fine or vehicle confiscation (you would be the first car, so probably the most likely to be pulled over)?

When the carpool lane is on the right it is absurd that the CVC would require all slower traffic to move into this lane (as non HOVs would be there illegally, and the lane would have the slowest travel speed). I've always understood the carpool lane as separate from the slow/medium/fast lanes (after all 90% of cars on the road cannot legally use it, so for them it effectively does not exist). I guess the CVC doesn't address this.

God, you are desperate! Monreal REAR ENDED Tobin! Monreal was doing 80, Tobin 55. Tobin wasn't even in the fast lane!!!!! He was also found partially responsible for the accident.

Here is the California law;

21654. (a) 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 at such time shall be
driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable
to the right-hand edge or curb, except when overtaking and passing
another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing
for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or
driveway.
(b) If a vehicle is being driven at a speed less than the normal
speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time, and is
not being driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as
practicable to the right-hand edge or curb, it shall constitute prima
facie evidence that the driver is operating the vehicle in violation
of subdivision (a) of this section.
(c) The Department of Transportation, with respect to state
highways, and local authorities, with respect to highways under their
jurisdiction, may place and maintain upon highways official signs
directing slow-moving traffic to use the right-hand traffic lane
except when overtaking and passing another vehicle or preparing for a
left turn.

Read the first six words. Good... Now read them again. Got it?
No literate person can misconstrue this code. It's in english.

1) No one can compel you to break the speedlimit.

2) If you are blocking traffic, REGARDLESS OF YOUR F*CKING SPEED, you must surrender the far left lane when it is safe and prudent to do so.

3) Steve imagines an exception to 21654 for HOV lanes that I have not been able to establish.


Notwithstanding the prima facie speed limits...

Notwithstanding the prima facie speed limits...

Notwithstanding the prima facie speed limits...

SmileWavy

No, not despirate, but merely correcting a blatently wrong conclusion of the law. Citations to statutes without interpretation are subject to opinion. Once an opinion hasbeen handed down from the court, the statute takes on the meaning presented by the court, subject to final interpretation by the Supreme Ct. Statues may be written but they obtain their meaning for the interpretation of the court. The language of the statute takes a back seat to the court interpretation.

Monreal argued that Tobin was at fault for not moving to the right. The court disagreed stating no one who is doing the maximum posted speed limit has a common law or statutory duty to move over. Monreal was at fault for traveling over the basic speed limit. Plain and simple.

Do what you want. People can act like a manic waiving their arms, cussing, and tailgating when a driver in front of them, moving at the maximum posted speed limit, will not move over. But are they rightfully entitled to excpet the people to move over so a vehicle going over the maximum speed limit can pass, no. Who knows if you really want drive as argued, get a ticket, and pay about $75K in attorneys fees to have ruling such as the Tobin ruling overturned, be my guest.

The problem in you argument is the assumption that a "prima facie speed limit" permits taveling in excess of the maximum posted speed limit. It simply does not. "Prima facie speed limit" means the speed that may be safely traveled considering weather conditions, up to the maximum speed limit.


BTW, what ever happened to Mul's issue?

Of course it doesn't! It's illegal to drive over the speed limit and I know of NO EXCEPTIONS to this rule.

Let's make this simple. You are in the left lane driving 65 (the speed limit). A faster driver flashes his lights, but you refuse to merge right despite ample opportunity to do so safely. The driver decides to pass on the right, and resumes his travel at 75 MPH.

A CHP officer who witnessed this pulls you BOTH over. You are both cited (correctly) for violations of the California Vehicle Code. He is cited for speeding and you are cited for obstructing the flow of traffic.

You are NEVER required (or allowed, as far as I know), to break the speed limit in the fast lane. You ARE required to yield the left lane to faster traffic when it is safe and prudent to do so.

If this still makes no sense to you, please rewrite CVC 21654 in your own words so I can figure out how you are misinterpreting such simple verbage.

I agree with Moses. The statute is clear that one must move over for faster traffic. Obstructing the highway because you appoint yourself the arbiter of how fast everone else should go is as illegal as speeding.

Unfortunately, its not enforced. Go to Europe and try that, you'll last about ten minutes on the road.

Totally correct. Also and I almost hate to admit it, but Rodeo is correct on the above post. You try that in Europe and you will be written up within 10 minutes of going on the highway. As you should be here in the states.

End of rant but it really perturbs me when some jerk sits in the HOV or passing lane and slows down traffic. They can sit in the right lane all they way but out of principal they do this stunt. Hope they all get tickets until they figure it out.

JoeA

Just a remark about legal speeding. As a firefighter, we are allowed to go 10 mph over the limit. We are suppose to have our red lights going. That is in either our own cars or firetrucks. I had a Ga. State Trooper hit me with his radar gun once and came out after me. Followed me until he figured out we were going to a fire. (radio and firefighter tag) On a sad note, we lost a fireman just recently when he got right side of a fire truck just off the road and over corrected. Hit a large tree. He was between the tree and 1500 gallons of water. I agree with most about people just sitting in fast lane. I sometimes go around on the right side then back in front and then turn on my right turn signal. Doesn't help.

"A reasonably prudent driver of a vehicle traveling at the posted maximum speed limit does not owe a common law duty of ordinary care or a statutory duty to move his or her vehicle to the right into the next slower lane if another driver approaches from behind in the same lane at a speed in excess of the posted maximum speed limit. Plaintiff's decision to remain in the same lane while driving at the posted speed limit did not violate either Veh C § 22350 ("basic speed law") or Veh C § 22400 ("minimum speed law")." Monreal v Tobin (1998, 4th Dist) 61 Cal App 4th 1337, 72 Cal Rptr 2d 168.

This pretty much settles it. So there is no obligation for someone doing the speed limit, in any lane, to move over in order to accomodate someone who wishes to travel faster than the speed limit. Person A clearly has the right to travel the speed limit. I would say that Person B does not have the right does not have the right to travel faster than the sopeed limit, but obviously some here would disagree. Person A neither has to move over nor speed up as per the above mentioned ruling. So then you must ask yourself who is more selfish, A who is operating legally or B who demands that everyone else speed up so that B has enough room to speed? I think that when you really sit down and analyze this postion that you will agree it B is the more unreasonable of the two.

Some of you seem to have taken the position that if Everyone else is speeding, and one person is traveling the speed the limit, then the one person is automatically at fault, and the one person put everyone else in danger. Is that necessarily the case? Is it possible that everyone else put themselves in danger when they chose to disregard the law? If 100 people are speeding and someone enters the freeway doing 65 (assuming 65 is the speed limit) and the 100 other people crash into the one person (one person being used to refer to the one person traveling at the speed limit), is it always the one person's fault?

If you cannot react to a person travelling at 65MPH how do you propose to react if traffic comes to a dead stop? I think we will all agree that it easier to slow yourself down to 65 to avoid hitting someone going 65 than to slow down to 0 to avoid hitting stopped traffic. Anyone remember the post the other day where traffic was stopped because someone threatened to jump off an overpass?

Finally, did the case result in a conviction? If it was mentioned i must have missed it.

*edited to add*
Actually that is not the case, please see the above mentioned ruling.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1138834698.jpg

That's not law! That's not a quotation from CVC. That's a quote from an appellate court decision. Ever been to court? BOTH sides will quote case law and appellate decisions that support both sides of the argument.

Your Monreal v Tobin citing is useless to our discussion.
1) Monreal REARENDED Tobin
2) Tobin was in lane 2 NOT lane 1.

Please explain 21654, you seem reluctant to say what it means to YOU.

And as you are well aware, case law is completely irrelvant to our discussion. Let's limit our discussion to the CVC.

Read the CVC. Case law is useless to this discussion as the court will rule differently based on the nuances of each individual case. It's like saying, "The judge ruled that I can can grow pot in my backyard!" Guess what? THAT DOESN'T CHANGE THE LAW! CVC 21654 HAS NOT BEEN OVERTURNED! People are ticketed for obstructing the flow of traffic every day. There is not one sentence anywhere in the CVC that says 21654 does not apply if you are travelling at the speedlimit. In fact, IT SAYS THE EXACT OPPOSITE!

Mo - you been spend'n that much time in court to be able to spout out this *****?

Boy best lay off his go foot o you's gonna loose that sweet ride fo sur!

Naw, I just make stuff up. ;)

our "Confessions of Tween Camper" is just about done. Want to do "Back to School?"

I thought I was the only one to do that. Seems a man can make a good live'n doing the creative non-fiction thing.

1. To argue that case law is useless to this discussion negates the entire concept of stare decisis which just happens to be a pillar of our justice system.

2. Upon further reading of the ruling, "Monreal did not owe a comon law or statutory duty to move into the next slower lane" does seem only to apply to lanes other than the #1 lane. This does however still negate your statements
"If you are blocking traffic, REGARDLESS OF YOUR F*CKING SPEED, you must surrender the far left lane when it is safe and prudent to do so"
"I am glad you mentioned that. You are precisely wrong. The duty to yield the left lane to FASTER traffic is NOT negated simply because you are at the speed limit."
which is the main point I was disputing.

3. I do not need to explain 21654, I am perfectly capable of reading it, and in fact I would interpret in the same manner as you have, my point is that the courts do not.

Reading a statute without applying the court interpretation is useless to find the meaning of a statute.

Almost every Constitutional argument made would be moot if one were only to read the Constitution for guidance. Case law is where a statute gets it's teeth. This is exacly why there is such a hubbub about Supreme Court nominees.

I know what you are reading, and can read the statute in the same way. But it is simply not the law.