Jump to content

Talk:Passing lane

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For a previous debate over the deletion of this article see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Passing lane.

Merge with Hammer Lane[edit]

The hammer lane article was created without knowing the existence of the passing lane article. The hammer lane article contains valuable information on acceptace, trucker lingo/etymology, cultural references, and problems/solutions and this info should be merged accordingly to the more accepted title "Passing Lane" article. Sections should also be added into this new article for better flow. Possible section titles could include "Acceptance", "Abuse", "Cultural references", and "Variations". --TinMan 20:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first two references in Hammer lane appear to be about a particular street named Hammer Lane and are therefore misplaced. The rest of the article appears to be geographically focused on one part of the world. If these can be overcome, go ahead and merge. You created that article instead of adding to this one, so you don't need support or help to move the info now, as you could have put it here in the first place. --Scott Davis Talk 14:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All 50 States?[edit]

Is it NOT illegal to drive in the passing lane without passing in any state? As far as I know, it has always been illegal in all states, period. Does anyone else have any info on this?

I don't think it's illegal to drive in the passing lane without passing. What generally IS illegal, I believe, is to not yield to another motorist who wishes to overtake in the passing lane. No matter how it's worded, you're not going to get ticketed unless you are impeding traffic, which people do so often without getting tickets that I am beginning to doubt that it's a law at all.

JudgeX (talk) 20:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In most states, its illegal for slower traffic to be in left lane, but you are partially right, its not strictly reserved for passing (as I had been taught when I was young.) It's seldom enforced. Only a few states expect to you to move out of the way as you suggested, which is rediculous since too many people do not pay attention to their rear view mirrors. Check this website out, which should probably be put into article. http://www.mit.edu/~jfc/right.html Jcchat66 (talk) 20:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why 'inner lane'? I don't understand why the outermost lane is called the inner lane in the UK or why the lane closest to the centre is called the outer lane? Surely if it's near the central reservation then it is the inner lane? I actually failed my driving test 10 years ago because I answered a theory question incorrectly and replied that the inner lane was for overtaking - my terminology was not correct but if the examiner had asked me to draw a simple diagram he'd have probably allowed it.-- (talk) 01:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my MD driving improvement program course we were instructed that the law states you have to drive the speed limit in the left-most lane. We were told nothing of yielding to cars that want to overtake cars. It is said that you cannot speed to pass another car, and while you can go slower than the speed limit in all other lanes, in the passing lane it is illegal to do anything but the speed limit. I'm not sure how other states laws are, but seems to me if the traffic in the 'fast' lane is going the speed limit, there's nothing to overtake, from a legal standpoint :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rules about staying to the right and overtaking to the left have nothing to do with condoning excessive speeds. They are about promoting orderly traffic flow. Orderly traffic flow is safe traffic flow. The German Autobahns are safer than U.S. Highways in part because of strict rules about lane usage ("Rechtsfahrgebot" or the obligation to drive on the right). You are correct that it is illegal to exceed the speed limit and that one should not overtake if one would have to exceed the speed limit to do so. However, the speed limit is not the only rule of the road. You must follow all of the other laws, too. You can't use a turn only lane if you aren't turning, right? In the same manner, you can't use a passing only lane if you aren't passing. Furthermore, trying to police what other drivers do is not defensive driving. It puts you at risk of being a victim of an accident, or the way some folks are these days, road rage. CoastalMaineiac (talk) 03:45, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This page is sophomoric, as is the page at M.I.T. used as reference. It is completely misleading - and probably the result of the poor influence of youth video game culture. In all U.S. states it is always unlawful to exceed the posted speed limits (unless you are authorized by the state and driving a law enforcement or emergency response vehicle); further there are statutes that make the speed limit less than that which is posted, if the road conditions so warrant: weather, hill crests, curves, pedestrians, etc. Again: it is never lawful in any state to exceed the speed limit, including to pass another vehicle going the same direction. - This page leaves the reader with the impression that it is always the responsibility of a law abiding citizen traveling in the far left lane at the maximum posted speed limit to move to the right to allow a lawbreaker to pass. The cited reference at M.I.T. seems to give the same impression, even including links to private organizations that promote speeding outright. The facts are that in my state, and in most states, outside of corporate city limits it is unlawful to occupy the far left lane, of a same direction multi-lane highway, except when passing; likewise within corporate city limits it is lawful to drive in the far left lane all day long, as well as pass on the right. It is only out in the country that one must keep to the right or face penalty, and as far as I know this is true in all of the contiguous U.S. states. The M.I.T. site references laws designed for state two lane opposed highways, broken down vehicles, and horse drawn carriages as evidence of the "right" of speeders to proceed unimpeded in the far left lane of a same direction multi-lane highway. - This page should have a huge disclaimer at the top stating: It is never lawful to exceed the speed limit - never, never, never, not even if your wife is about to give birth, not ever - and the reference to the M.I.T. page should be deleted as it is trash. There is a huge segment of society who are completely misinformed in believing that: if they can get away with something, then it is their right. It is true that this "need for speed" at everyone else's expense has led to pressure on a few state legislators, a break down in common sense, and the enactment in a few states of statutes that actually make it unlawful to not get out of the way of lawbreakers - as they would then get enraged and endanger your life and others around you: - "The Colorado State Patrol is always concerned with actions that lead to aggressive driving. The longer a slower-moving vehicle occupies the left-hand travel lane, the more frustrated some drivers become, particularly when heavy traffic volume prevents vehicles from passing. Once these drivers have reached their boiling points, acts of aggressive driving and offensive gesturing become more prevalent. (http://csp.state.co.us/downloads/leftlanebrochure.pdf)" - With traffic deaths in the U.S. up to 15 times the toll on 9-11 each and every year, one would think that as a nation we could hold the line against such nonsense, and thus I do not recommend Wikipedia contribute to the aggregate of misinformation being shared on the web concerning one's right for everyone to get out of the way if one wants to break the law and proceed above the posted speed limit - as this is actually only true in a few states ( (talk) 03:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

From the Rhode Island Statues, "§ 31-15-2 Slow traffic to right. – Upon all roadways any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway," http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/Statutes/TITLE31/31-15/31-15-2.HTM Note how it says "normal speed of traffic", rather than "anyone going faster than you, but not faster than the speed limit because they're the scum of the Earth and should be shot." Counterfit (talk) 06:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Misquoted statute[edit]

The context of the remark makes it clear that a citation is needed to support one or both of the statements in the sentence. The Massachusetts statute doesn't support either. Tedickey (talk) 22:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Missing explanation for British/Irish terminology[edit]

The article explains why "other countries" like Hungary use the words inner and outer (because the lane is innermost or outermost). What's the reason for the British usage, as in why does "outermost" refer to the lane nearest the center, and "innermost" for the lane you start in?

The reason is perfectly simple. In either direction the overtaking lane is outermost. The terminology does not apply to the the two carriageway combined. You might just as well ask why the North American 'left lane' is not called the 'central lane'. DavidCrosbie (talk) 01:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've inserted an explanation.DavidCrosbie (talk) 02:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Carmody, we don't care[edit]

I don't know who Michael Carmody is, what kind of ego-maniac thinks it's normal practice to edit wikipedia with statements like "I'm joe nobody and I don't agree with this...." If everyone did that wikipedia would become a giant discussion forum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article suffers stupid non sequitur/s[edit]

To wit: "A common problem arising from misuse of the "fast lane" is that it forces faster moving traffic that wishes to overtake on the left to change lanes, do so on the right, and then change lanes again."

Faster traffic is not "forced" to do a damn thing except yield the ROW to the vehicle to their front.

Perhaps nowhere else in traffic code is simple ROW so misunderstood. Some states (VA, OR, WI) stipulate "unlawful speed forfeits right-of-way". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And why are they changing lanes again at the end? (talk) 13:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"MIT's page" and other inaccurate and POV claims[edit]

That was not the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's "keep right laws" page, it's just the musings of some random MIT geology graduate. His only qualification to talk about traffic law is that he happens to be a member of the National Motorists Association, which is an organization advocating that people flaunt speed limits. Not an authority worth citing but rather just another non-notable instance of people arguing on the Internet. Accordingly, I've removed it.

The rest of the section on "misuse and common practice" contains several other factual errors and is quite plainly POV. I don't have the time right now to attempt to fix all the issues with it. I would recommend that, unless it's cleaned up in the near future, the POV and CITE tags be applied.

Prodicus (talk) 06:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed one such error in that section.

In North Carolina, statute GS_20-146 states "Drive on the right side of highways; exceptions: when passing or overtaking another vehicle". There is a fine and court costs for improper lane usage.

That is blatantly false. The [referenced statute] relates to driving on the right half of the road, and only mentions the right lane in reference to cars that are driving below the speed limit (20-146 b and e). In NC, as in most states, there is no lane set aside for people who place so little value on human life that they can't be bothered to drive at safe speeds, contributing to the deaths of more than 30,000 people a year in America alone, and to the un-numbered permanent cripplings of people like me.
--Kitsunegami (talk) 22:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Passing lane. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]