Through Tuesday, Kansas drivers could hog the left lane of multilane highways and risk only a honk or dirty look. As of today, they can get an officer warning if they loiter in the left lane on roads outside cities. A year from today, they may draw a fine. Is this the most important measure the Legislature passed this year? No. But it puts the law on the side of those who’ve always taken care to use the left lane sparingly, for passing and left turns.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/7
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/7
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/7
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/7
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/7
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/7
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/7
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/7
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/7
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/7
53 Comments
I think this new “left lane” law is purely a money raising measure by the State of Kansas. I have been watching for flat-out left lane drivers and I don’t find any. I think few if any drivers purposely drive in the left lane unless impaired or talking on a cell phone.
There are legitimate reasons to drive in the left lane any of which can be misinterpreted by a law enforcement officer looking to give a ticket.
1) To make a left lane and possibly not familiar enough with the road to know where the left turn is.
2) To avoid an animal or dead animal or some other obstruction in the road.
3) To pass which is subject to misinterpretation by a traffic officer.
4) A variety of other reasons.
This law is too vague to be enforced properly. It gives too much latitude to officers who might themselves be tired at the end of a day. It unnecessarily puts State Government in your car making driving decisions for you.
And who paid for that left lane? All taxpayers. Its there too make driving safer, not to raise more taxes for money starved government.
Frankly the #1 driving problem is distracted persons talking on cell phones while driving. Every day I notice dangerous driving situations caused by cell phone talkers … tailgating, speeding, running red lights, etc.
Research shows talking on cell phones is more dangerous than drunk driving. But everyone does it … so no laws passed against it.
I use the left lane because I usually can’t get out of it since the right lane is blocked by fire trucks.
I drive in the left lane because I’m continually passing. Until I get behind the self designated speed control driver, then have to switch to the right lane when I get a chance.
This will be so funny to watch early morning with the plant traffic on 54.
There are several reasons for the left lane law.
– passing on the right is dangerous (weaving)
– heavier vehicles starting their pass mode from the right lane will have great difficulty slowing down if the inside (left lane) is blocked by a slower driver
– stacking of cars in the inside lane used for passing can and does cause pile-ups, especially in less than idea weather (rain, fog, snow, etc.)
In Germany and other European countries, it is a felony if you cause an accident while you were homesteading on the inside lane. You can go to jail and it cannot be argued in court as inattentive driving.
“Regular
Posted July 1, 2009 at 8:38 am | Permalink
…In Germany and other European countries, it is a felony if you cause an accident while you were homesteading on the inside lane. You can go to jail and it cannot be argued in court as inattentive driving.”
Of course those countries also give their citizens the freedom to go as fast as they want on some roads.
#
brian_nuevo
Posted July 1, 2009 at 9:10 am | Permalink
“Regular
Posted July 1, 2009 at 8:38 am | Permalink
…In Germany and other European countries, it is a felony if you cause an accident while you were homesteading on the inside lane. You can go to jail and it cannot be argued in court as inattentive driving.”
Of course those countries also give their citizens the freedom to go as fast as they want on some roads.
——————————-
Not anymore – last I heard, there were very few stretches of Autobahn that are unlimited speed now.
Yes, the speed allowed is faster than the U.S, but no more seeing the Porsche Carrara flashing it’s lights at you to get out of the way while it’s coming from behind at 160m.p.h. :)
“I’m an excellent driver” -Rain Man
I think this law is stupid. It will not prevent slow driving in the left lane. Drivers who do that are usually spacing out and not paying attention to their driving; they will not be cognizant of the fact that they are breaking the law. Law enforcement could pull those drivers over before if they were impeding traffic, and there is always a reason to ticket someone if they wanted to make a point.
Don’t expect to see traffic patterns change as a result of this law and don’t expect those turtles who drive 64 on the left lane of the turnpike to move over.
“Regular
Posted July 1, 2009 at 9:15 am | Permalink
…no more seeing the Porsche Carrara flashing it’s lights at you to get out of the way while it’s coming from behind at 160m.p.h. :)”
Now it will be the Porsche Panamera –
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/112_0909_2010_porsche_panamera_review/index.html
brian_nuevo
Posted July 1, 2009 at 9:26 am | Permalink
I think this law is stupid. It will not prevent slow driving in the left lane.
————————-
Not really…
Big rigs that maintain a momentum because of their weight and need to pass can’t easily negotiate around slower cars hogging the inside left lane.
What you’ll probably see is the Highway Patrol driving down the left inside lane with lights flashing at just above the maximum speed limit to keep the way clear and reminding drivers of the law.
Initially that is and then the Highway Patrol will start issuing tickets for violations. :)
#
brian_nuevo
Posted July 1, 2009 at 9:30 am | Permalink
“Regular
Posted July 1, 2009 at 9:15 am | Permalink
…no more seeing the Porsche Carrara flashing it’s lights at you to get out of the way while it’s coming from behind at 160m.p.h. :)”
Now it will be the Porsche Panamera -
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/112_0909_2010_porsche_panamera_review/index.html
———————
Jeez, nice car…
I can tell you from personal experience, that nothing will make your circular vent pucker up more than having your car paint peeled back being passed by a car going twice as fast as you are. :)
“Regular
…I can tell you from personal experience, that nothing will make your circular vent pucker up more than having your car paint peeled back being passed by a car going twice as fast as you are. :)”
I presume you were not going 30 kph when they doubled your speed :)
On the subject of cell phone driving: A few minutes ago, I noticed a wreck with a new blue car and a pickup at about 3rd and Waco. Police are there trying to sort it out. While watching, a woman talking on a cell phone, drove right through the mess apparently describing it to a friend over her cell phone.
Talking on cell phones while driving is a main culprit of auto accidents and traffic infractions. But even the police are doing it. So I don’t expect any legislation on this anytime soon. Better to go after drivers ambiguosly driving in the left lane for a legitimate reason.
And because Wichita diety, Dawson Grimsley, has selected “left lane driving” as his issue to pander about on TV.
Interpretation will be important. I watched myself as I drove upstate on Sunday and noticed that I tend to ‘camp out’ in the left lane. The reason – I would tend to be overtaking cars in the right lane as I cruised at 75 mph. Not always ‘passing’ perhaps as I would be approaching a vehicle ‘a ways ahead’ of me.
I always watch my mirrors so if another driver going faster than 75 were gaining on me I would move right and cede the lane to him.
So – the question: would I be in violation of the new law? From an ‘intent’ perspective I would say NO. However, how might a cop interpret it?
If a cop was following, better switch lanes once in a while.
I think they’ll be looking for a driver, that’s the locomotive of a train following them in the left lane.
Don’t know about the law that says move the cars involved in a wreck to a safe place, it’ll be hard to determine who caused the wreck.
If you’re passed on the right you’re driving too slow.
Its odd that the people who claim to against “big” government are supporting a otherwise stupid law. So my understanding of this is that one going the speed limit in the left lane has to move over to accommodate law breakers who want to speed? and how does the highway parole know who is driving in the left lane and who is passing?
#
TomPaine
Posted July 1, 2009 at 10:35 am | Permalink
Its odd that the people who claim to against “big” government are supporting a otherwise stupid law. So my understanding of this is that one going the speed limit in the left lane has to move over to accommodate law breakers who want to speed? and how does the highway parole know who is driving in the left lane and who is passing?
————————-
Big government?
What are you smoking, it’s called law enforcement.
ninny…
Put 90% of the trucks onto trains, and you eliminate most of the left-lane problem.
Reg, last I checked law enforcement is part of the government, and the legislature which is dominated by Republicans(who supposedly support small government) adding more useless and unnecessary laws to the books is precisely big government
and how does the highway parole know who is driving in the left lane and who is passing?
—————————————————-
If there’s a car in the right lane, you’re passing.
“Mr_Kia
Posted July 1, 2009 at 11:11 am | Permalink
and how does the highway parole know who is driving in the left lane and who is passing?
—————————————————-
If there’s a car in the right lane, you’re passing.”
Hopefully they consider cars about to be entering the right lane as pass-ees. I like to switch from the right lane to the left lane in advance of merging traffic so I do not have to slow down for them. I guess that is ‘passing’?
A law to protect law breakers.
Nice. Why are they called speed limits when they are only enforced as suggestions?
“But it puts the law on the side of those who’ve always taken care to use the left lane sparingly, for passing and left turns.”
It puts the law on the side of people driving faster than the apparently suggested speed.
Why not equip all vehicles with a GPS?
Then Big Brother could:
1. Give us speeding tickets via GPS data. Process could be automated.
2. Give us lane violation tickets via GPS data. Process could be automated.
3. Traffic Cops would have more time to go after real criminals.
4. Tax us per mile driven instead of a per gallon purchased basis. That way, Government won’t lose revenue after we are all driving 100 MPG Obamavehicles. And it would cure Global Warming by discouraging driving.
5. See where we are at all times, and maybe put us at the scene of a major crime, like adultery, that would otherwise go undetected.
6. Verify that mileage deduction for business use of vehicles.
7. See traffic patterns more clearly and better design highway improvements to accomodate traffic flows or require you to change your working hours and/or work location. (Which Big Brother will have the authority to do after they take over all industry and all employers.)
8. Levee a surtax on those who travel too much, like those rich bass turds.
It puts the law on the side of people driving faster than the apparently suggested speed.
In case you haven’t noticed, JR, that’s in many cases most people. If that is the case, the question to ask is whether in fact the speed limits are too slow?
Left to their own devices, most people will tell you by their own driving what is a safe and prudent speed; traffic engineers study just that in deciding what speed limits to set (and then usually set the legal speed a little below that, to allow for those who inevitably will push the limits).
“JimJohnson
Posted July 1, 2009 at 12:23 pm | Permalink
Why not equip all vehicles with a GPS?”
That is a nanny-state Republican suggestion if I ever heard one!
Pretty much a stupid law. Doesn’t apply within city limits. Most of the nitwits that do 55 in a 65 do it on the by-passes in town. Not so much of a problem on the turnpike.
brian_nuevo
Posted July 1, 2009 at 12:29 pm | Permalink
“JimJohnson
Posted July 1, 2009 at 12:23 pm | Permalink
Why not equip all vehicles with a GPS?”
That is a nanny-state
RepublicanDemocratic/Obama administration suggestion if I ever heard one!Fixed it for you.
Gallagher had the best solution to traffic problems:
We should have dart guns that shoot those suction cup darts. Whenever you see someone driving like an idiot, you shoot the car. If a cop sees a car with three or more darts, they pull him over and issue a ticket for Driving with Stupidity.
silly and needless law. I am guessing one legislator was inconvenienced for a few minutes, and decided to ‘fix’ that. As if we don’t have enough little tiny ridiculous laws, here is another one.
Really…how often are there ‘packs’ of cars on the turnpike or I-70 outside of municipalities? Oh, the horror if someone has to take off their cruise control for 3 minutes because someone else is not going fast enough?
Give me a break….this is ridiculous..another nanny law to control the sheeple. News flash..government does not exist to cure every social ill possible!
Personally, I think that they should put more teeth into “tailgating” regulations, for instance, making tailgating a capital offense subject to the death penalty – on the spot.
A few days ago, I was taking Kellogg West to the West Waldo World, taking the Dugan exit. A white Cavalier was tailgating me to the point that I could not see him in my my sideview mirrors. An old 240Z coming off 235 slid in in front of me and I had to touch my brakes to avoid to avoid an up close and personal encounter with his rear bumper.
I think the guy in the Cavalier pooped his pants a little bit – he was rolling down his window when he drove by on Dugan.
WS –
I have one solution to this sort of problem . . . but I won’t pass it on here, as I’m sure I’d be labeled a RWE.
Careful; you’re near RWE territory yourself!
;-)
as much as it scares me to write this, I find myself in agreement with WS (shocking, isn’t it??)
tailgaters should not be allowed to drive, own vehicles or, for that matter, live.
enforcement of existing laws on tailgating is desparately needed….
Rap, I know that you have experienced this – you’re out taking a ride on your bike, minding your own business, and some idiot rides right up on your rear…………………. inches away from putting you down.
It should be legal to turn around in your saddle and cap the SOB.
WS…yes, I have. Actually, I was rear-ended on a freeway offramp in CA by a drunk. He hit me twice…and I am still paranoid about tailgaters. Although I don’t have ccw license, there are times like that I wished I did.
What really gets me are the tailgaters in traffic when there is no place to go–do they really think that tailgating me is going to make the vehicles in front of me go faster?
nitwits. idiots.
“In case you haven’t noticed, JR, that’s in many cases most people. If that is the case, the question to ask is whether in fact the speed limits are too slow? ”
So, people break the law and it is the law that is to blame?
Hey, I can roll with that! Let’s expand on that concept!
It’s only stealing if it feels like I’m stealing.
We know that fuel efficiency begins to diminish rapidly above 55 miles per hour.
We are a nation made to pay a great price in blood and treasure in order to guarantee our supply of affordable fuel.
What part of the equation are YOU missing? Your personal indulgence of your inner NASCAR?
Well, it seems that for now, the law is going to indulge you.
At least at night, the inside lane should be open for all traffic in order to reduce deer/vehicle collision. I predict this law will cause them to increase.
That great Republican president Tricky Dick Nixon said it best when he said “if the President does it…it’s not against the law.”
Thank you Republicans for the great lessons in FAMILY VALUES that you’ve been teaching us.
We know that fuel efficiency begins to diminish rapidly above 55 miles per hour.
=================================
Yes it does, if you are driving a +15 year old car.
If Obama cared about stopping Global Warming, he’d mandate 55 mph.
But he knows that would not be politically popular.
I CAN certainly understand the desire to get through or out of Kansas as quickly as possible. But I know the aggressive driver mentality. My brother suffers from it.
The Roger Ramjets are now going to feel like ALL lanes should be their personal raceway. This is incredibly foolish.
Irregardless of if someone is speeding or not, hogging the “passing lane” impedes the flow of traffic.
Speedometers are not all perfect. There can easily be a variation of up to 5mph between one vehicle and another.
If you have someone sitting on cruise control in the passing lane they might actually be going under the speed limit causing traffic to have to erradically try to pass them on the right.
There are many reasons someone might need to actually pass someone in the passing lane.
And all it takes is that one person who wants to cruise at the speed limit or just below it to block traffic, cause accidents, and prevent people from using that lane… to pass someone.
#
ANTI
Posted July 1, 2009 at 7:14 pm | Permalink
We know that fuel efficiency begins to diminish rapidly above 55 miles per hour.
=================================
Yes it does, if you are driving a +15 year old car.
=========================
I put rocks in your tank to make it appear to have more gas. :)
“Irregardless” is not a word – correctly it is “regardless.”
I drive in the left left for two reasons:
I go faster than anyone else and the highway is smoother on the left side.
If I do it…it’s not against the law (thanks to Tricky Dick “family Values” Nixon).
This sounds like BJ:
I drive really slow in the ultra-fast lane,
While people behind me are going insane.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=552NcxKHufY
I don’t USUALLY bother myself with con links.
Considering the source, ya know?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=552NcxKHufY
DO watch this one.
I drive the speed limit. Everything else in that video is the EPITOME of every con that posts here!
irregardless
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless
usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.
Irregardless
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregardless
Irregardless is a word. It is suggested that regardless be used instead.