Left Lane Blockers

Keep Right SignWhen I used an unmarked car for enforcement, one of the tactics that I would use on multi-laned highways involved finding a vehicle traveling at the speed limit in the left hand lane. I would take up a position in the right hand lane a few vehicles lengths back and wait. It did not take long before another driver was dangerously close to the vehicle that I was following, trying to bulldoze them out of the way.

left lane blocker

After watching for a few moments to make sure that the second driver would not establish a safe following distance or go around on the right, I would pull over that  vehicle and ticket the driver for following too closely. Almost invariably the driver would complain about the vehicle in front and ask why I had not ticketed the first driver for failing to get out of the way. I would respond that I preferred to write the ticket for the offence that was the more dangerous.

In the conversation that followed, it was made clear to me that the bulldozer felt that the left lane blocker (aka: Left Lane Bandit) failing to get out of the way was more serious than they were by choosing to severely limit their ability to react if something unexpected occurred.

If you are driving in the left hand lane and you are driving at a speed less than normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing, you must drive in the right hand lane if it is practical to do so. It is important to note that the words speed limit do not appear anywhere in the last sentence. If you are slower, move over. If you choose not to, you are at risk of being ticketed for failing to keep to the right unless it is unreasonable to do so.

There are four exemptions to this rule:

  1. Passing someone travelling slower than you are
  2. Preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a driveway or private road.
  3. Allowing other traffic to merge
  4. When moving over for an official vehicle stopped on the roadway or at the roadside

Our provincial government felt that this rule did not provide sufficient instruction to drivers about keeping right, so they enacted more legislation to further define when drivers must not use the leftmost lane.

One difficulty that I faced was a traffic court justice that told me not to bring fail to keep right tickets into her court unless the driver was traveling less than the posted speed limit. If they were following the limit, she would not convict.

Left lane blockers increase the risk caused by aggressive drivers. The aggressive driver cares for no one but themselves and will try to get by using any means available. By refusing to move over, the left lane blocker contributes to unsafe lane changes and tailgating behaviour.

A defensive driver will reduce the risk by giving right of way even when the law does not require them to.

There are a few problems with this article.
First No one likes left lane blocker. -This implies that your opinion is the opinion of the whole world and it is not. Hence it problably should say "People that want to speed and break the law do not like left lane blockers" Or "The author does like left lane blockers".

Second, They may not be oblivious to the traffic behind them, they may simply be doing the speed limit. Please remember that the speed limit is the maximum speed that a vehicle is to travel at, taking the road conditions into account. If they are doing the speed limit there is no reason for them to move over since anyone that wishes to pass them is committing a traffic offence.

Quote
"If you are driving in the left hand lane and you are driving at a speed less than normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing, you must drive in the right hand lane if it is practical to do so. It is important to note that the words speed limit do not appear anywhere in the last sentence. If you are slower, move over. If you choose not to, you are at risk of being ticketed for failing to keep to the right unless it is unreasonable to do so."

This quote damages the acticle horribly, it mixes part of the traffic act with the authors mis-interpretation of the act. Clearly if a driver is driving below the speed limit and road conditions would allow other drivers to travel at the speed limit, the driver should move over to the right lane if it is safe to do so (as stated in the first line). The problem is the next sentence that states "speed limit do not appear..."
To me this implys that the author is stating that the speed limit does not apply to people in this lane, yet it is part of the act, hence why should they have to repeat it again. If you speed you are breaking the law, is this hard to understand. At this point where-ever the author states left lane blockers, it is unknow if the reference is to at the speed limit or below the speed limit drivers.
Another way of looking at it is - if a left lane blocker is blocking traffic then guess what, that driver has set the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing, hence to issue a ticket would be violation of the act.

Next paragaph is fine

Last paragraph is very bad since it now contradicts the second paragraph last lines "If you are slower, move over. If you choose not to, you are at risk of being ticketed for failing to keep to the right." keep in mind that slower had nothing to do with the speed limit, and the last line "A defensive driver will reduce the risk by giving right of way even when the law does not require them to.". So in one line it states you can be ticket for breaking the law by driving at the speed limit and the next states you were not breaking the law. Humm

As for aggressive drivers, we should not be helping them in any way shape or form, instead we need the police to treat them like any potential murder and hit them with every ticket they can.

A better reason to drive to the right has nothing to do with helping the criminals, it has to do with being one lane further away from traffic that is coming at you. Simple math, you are doing 100km/hr, they are doing 100km/hr in the opposite direction = 200km/hr head on collision. You do not walk away from the accident.

BT
 

Well written Terraformer!

You have covered everything I wanted to say.  I don't understand why speeders are being encouraged .  Sounds like I can bully left lane drivers too because if I'm behind them, they are suppose to move to the right lane.

MG

Bravo!  Finally, another sensible driver who fails to see the logic of allowing aggressive drivers to bully their way around the road.  It is not my fault that these people have no regard for the law, so how is it my fault that by obeying the law, I am in the wrong?  The only exception that I make, is when the road is clearly posted "Keep Right Except To Pass".  If the signage reads "Slower Traffic Keep Right", then the slow drivers who cannot, for whatever reason, maintain the MAXIMUM SPEED , should yield the left lane.  The left lane is not the "fast" lane.  It has the same MAXIMUM SPEED LIMIT as any other lane.  I have not yet seen a sign posting a "SUGGESTED SPEED LIMIT".   If these drivers  feel they need to exceed the MAXIMUM SPEED LIMIT, they can go around me.

My first reaction to reading the first part of this article (before the comments) was "Oh, this makes it sound like it is OK to go whatever speed you want in the left-hand lane."

Thanks to the other comments for pointing out the holes and mistaken attitude of the writer.

I feel quite confident in going exactly at the common maximum speed, which is 10 K/hr. OVER the posted speed limit (my observation  driving on BC roads for 40 years). If the posted speed limit is 100k/hr, then the "common maximum speed" is 110.

If I am in the left lane, going at the maximum common speed and someone wants to pass me, well, they can jolly well pass on the right. I refuse to be bullied by the speeders!!!!

I will not be ticketed for doing this - I am within the "error allowance" of the police. Anyone tailgating too close should get the ticket.

Perhaps some of you aren't aware that the initial poster is correct. While you are driving in the left lane you are REQUIRED to move over if someone approaches you from behind. (This is assuming there is noone in the direct vicinity forward of you in the same lane) Failing to do so is a violation of section 150(1 or 2) and also if you are travelling too slow while blocking the passing lane you are also violating section 151(g) of the MVA. Also the reason the person behind you isn't passing on the right is because that is also ILLEGAL! (as per section 158(1) of the MVA)

Failing to do so will garnish you a ticket for failing to move over regardless if the other driver was speeding. Also failing to move over causes the person wishing to pass frustration which will result in unsafe passing on the right (section 158(1, and 2a(or b if it was off the roadway)) .

So do yourself and everyone else on the road a favor and DRIVE in the right lane, PASS in the left lane like the LAW says you should. We don't care what you think is right or if you disagree with people speeding.  Everyone that speeds knows the law and accepts the ticket. By breaking it yourself, you only endanger the drivers around you and cause others more frustration with your stupidity and/or ignorance of the laws.

Each and every speeding ticket I have received (3) I have also caused the person that was in front of me to receive a ticket for those offenses (which was more than my speeding ticket). I testified in court the exact scenario that occured and he slapped me with $167 and the other driver with over $400 worth of tickets.

So go ahead and drive in your left lane, you will get run off the road by aggressive drivers and ticketed if you get near me while I'm getting one. I've got lots of money and little care for ignorant fools such as you breaking the law trying to inconvenience me.

Have a nice day!

I agree, the act is very ambiguous. What is considered "normal".  Like the initial poster wrote, someone could be in the left lane and driving the maximum speed limit and some yahoo behind him who is speeding (as is everyone else) must move over to the right? I kinda find that hard to believe. I for one believe that if someone ever gets a ticket for not driving the "normal" speed of traffic will have the ticket thrown out. I believe "normal" means not exceeding the posted speed limit. In any event, "normal" must be clearly defined with the act. 

I do think John Denver is off cue. How often does a peace officer ticket more than once person? He usually tickets one person, the person who will be tailgaiting. You can drive in the left lane. The act makes no mention that you cannot. And the driver behind you must not tailgate you. The driver in front who is to go to the right lane must do so in a safe manner. For a driver to tailgate is by definition an aggressive driver. Tailgating is illegal and it is dangerous. The tone of John clearly indicates that he is a very aggressive individual. People like him should not have a driver's license, in my opinion. 

Below is the act for those who are unclear of all the numbers John has been throwing around:

 

Driver on right
150  (1) The driver of a vehicle must confine the course of the vehicle to the right hand half of the roadway if the roadway is of sufficient width and it is practicable to do so, except
 
(a) when overtaking and passing a vehicle proceeding in the same direction,
 
(b) when the right hand half of the roadway is closed to traffic while under construction or repair,
 
(c) on a highway designated and marked by signs for one way traffic,
 
(d) if necessary when operating snow removing equipment, or
 
(e) if
 
(i)  the movement of a vehicle, or combination of vehicles, is permitted by and is done in conformity with the terms of the oversize permit issued under the Commercial Transport Act, and
 
(ii)  the width of a vehicle, or combination of vehicles, or the width of a load on the vehicle makes the operation of the vehicle or combination of vehicles on the right hand half of the roadway unsafe.
 
(2) The driver of a vehicle proceeding at less than normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing must drive the vehicle in the right hand lane then available for traffic, or as closely as practicable to the right hand curb or edge of the roadway, except when overtaking and passing a vehicle proceeding in the same direction, or when preparing for a left hand turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
 
(3) The driver of a vehicle passing around a rotary traffic island must drive the vehicle to the right of the island.
 
Driving on laned roadway
151  A driver who is driving a vehicle on a laned roadway
 
(a) must not drive it from one lane to another when a broken line only exists between the lanes, unless the driver has ascertained that movement can be made with safety and will in no way affect the travel of another vehicle,
 
(b) must not drive it from one lane to another if that action necessitates crossing a solid line,
 
(c) must not drive it from one lane to another without first signalling his or her intention to do so by hand and arm or approved mechanical device in the manner prescribed by sections 171 and 172,
 
(d) when approaching an intersection intending to turn left must drive the vehicle in the centre lane or in the lane nearest the centre of the roadway on the right hand half of the highway,
 
(e) when approaching an intersection intending to turn right must drive the vehicle in the lane nearest to the right hand side of the roadway,
 
(f) must not pass a vehicle on the left if that action necessitates driving on that part of the highway designated for travel in the opposite direction, and
 
(g) if a traffic control device directs slow moving traffic to use a designated lane, must when driving slowly drive the vehicle in that lane 

Well put, John Denver, rich man with a total disregard for other drivers.

"...trying to inconvenience me. "

"...you will get run off the road..."

People with your "I'm superior to you" attitude take the pleasure out of driving.

Look, we all want to get to our destinations safely; lets cooperate on the roads.

When the Laurentian Autoroute, from Montreal to Ste Jerome first opened, there were many left lane blockers. It wasn't long before the police had mounted in their rear window, a big flashing arrow (pointing right, natch), with the illuminated text "Keep Right".  They'd turn on their roof lights, the driver in front would pull to the right, the police car would move in front of the driver, matching his/her speed, then turn on the flashing arrow for a few seconds, then accelerate away. Quick and effective. They hardly ever had to pull someone over.

I am so stunned reading how John Denver has no regards to good drivers who's trying to fololow the law and discourage speeders/dangerous drivers.  I may have seen this guy on "instant karma" videos on you tube:).  If not, I hope to see this guy crashing one day. 

Don't show off or else, you could become a victim!  

We need to gangup against these aggressive drivers.  At lease take the plate number and call police to report.  Once I have followed the bad driver while on phone with police and followed until he was caught:)  This is what we all need to do but stay safe!

To my understanding from following Article:

(2) The driver of a vehicle proceeding at less than normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing must drive the vehicle in the right hand lane then available for traffic, or as closely as practicable to the right hand curb or edge of the roadway, except when overtaking and passing a vehicle proceeding in the same direction, or when preparing for a left hand turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.

I can stay on left if I keep up my speed.  "Slower vehicle, keep right" does not mean you come behind me at 200 km/h and expect me to move to right?  How would it make sense that I am forcing people pass me from right lane endangering other drivers?  Why would some one drive at excessive speed and I amd the one endangering other driver???  

The law have no regards to the aggresive drivers!

"Have a nice day"

The law is clear, and MVA Section 162(1) pretty much unequivocal.  Following too closely is rude, dangerous, illegal, and one of the most frequent triggers of road rage or fear in those being tailgated.

Furthermore, the commonest type of motor vehicle crash is a 2-car collision, and by far the most frequent type of 2-car collision is the rear-ender*; typically caused by failing to comply with Section 162(1) with distracted driving often being an additional factor.

* Should you doubt this, visit a wrecking yard and look at the damage.

Don't expect this to change any time soon though, if you're relying on the police to enforce the law in accordance with collision risk; only one half of one per cent of tickets issued are under this section of the Motor Vehicle Act.  (You could say that enforcing this law is not high on their radar, but that would be an awful pun ... )

How would it make sense that I am forcing people pass me from right lane endangering other drivers?

I sure hope you're not asking this seriously?  Forcing other drivers to pass on the right - due to you camping out in the left lane - and regardless of how fast you're going - means that they will need to slow considerably, inject themselves into the right lane, ease by you at the speed of traffic in that slower lane, and then switch lanes again to continue.  That's two lane changes that they wouldn't have made if you weren't in their way, as well as deceleration and acceleration, probably accompanied by close space margins that vastly increase the chance of collision.  Of course your self-righteous behaviour is endangering other drivers, for pity's sake!

Truck drivers refer to the left side of their vehicle as their 'sight side' and the right side of their vehicle as their 'blind side', and for a very good reason.  Passing on the right is much more dangerous than passing on the left, even if it's just the 4-wheelers involved.

And if it's your perception that these other drivers are coming up on you at 200 km/h, then maybe you should check that rear view mirror more frequently than every half hour ...

Look, driving is a social activity, and we have to work with each other in a calm and mature manner so that we can all get where we're going and have a nice day.  I don't like being tail-gated, particularly when the 'fast' lane is jam packed ahead of me and some fool is trying to push past one of us after another - that's just asinine, selfish, rude, illegal, and ultimately pointless unless getting there 5 seconds earlier is somehow essential to their well being (it isn't, I'm certain).  So if some twit gets too close behind me in that type of high volume traffic, I just ease gently off the throttle until I've increased my following distance enough to compensate for the lack of space behind me.  But I won't ever stay in the left lane if I'm not passing anyone, that's just plain stupid.  And these days, when signs have been erected directing that slower drivers should keep right, or that the left lane is for passing, or like that, then it's no hardship to move over!  

Besides, I would much rather some impatient fool goes ahead to find out where the cops are hiding, eh?

 

How am I camping out in the left lane while I am driving 10 km above the limit?  Are you one of the those speeders too?

The law says "The driver of a vehicle proceeding at less than normal speed of traffic...."

I don't have to move over unless I have plenty of room on left lane.  NOT the size of room you speeders think of.

If the traffic is jam packed ahead of you but moving faster than the left lane, then every one would like to be on left of course?  Why would I move to right when I know that lane is not moving well.  You have seen both lanes packed and there is no exit on left (highways) and people always wants to merge to the faster moving lane.  And that is normal.  It is just a courtesy not the law.  If you think the speeders speed no matter whether they pass you from left or right?  Then you and the law are partly responsible for the death caused by the speeder's head on collusion???  Okay, think about this, If i am in the bar drinking so much so that I can't control myself and forget about driving.  Would you allow if you were bar tender?  Why not?  If that can cause accident and death, what about speeding driver's? 

We have more accidents caused by the speeders than the left lane drivers.  I might agree with your saying at the end but the thing is most of us know where they usually are and nothing stops them and you probably read John Denver's comments.  There are lot of driver's with lot of money with no regards to "left lane blockers".  

You are partly supporting people like Joh Denver.

All the problem comes from speeding.  If ther is no need/can't speed, we wouldn't have any issues. You want to call left lane drivers "left lane blockers" just because you want to speed.  The title itself is misleading to me.  And more over your statement "due to you camping out in the left lane"??  

If the law doesn't prevent people being able to drive in excessive speed, I am sure a good lawyer could challenge the BC law and sue for compensation for any speeding causing deaths soon.

When this thread started in April 2008, the new Motor Vehicle Act section that addresses left lane "blocking" did not exist.

Prior to this year, when there were no signs instructing where slow traffic must drive, we had to rely on a section that described a person driving "at so slow a speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic"

The new section tell us that on a laned roadway, where the speed limit is at least 80 KPH a driver of a vehicle in the leftmost lane must exit the lane on the approach of another vehicle in that lane, if safe to do so.  The exceptions are when the vehicle is passing another vehicle, allowing traffic to merge, preparing for a left turn or passing an "official" vehicle stopped on the side of the roadway.

It was concerning to read the remarks of Terraformer, who felt by moving out of the left lane they were "helping" speeders to speed.

Further concerning was ManiG and Paul praising Terraformer's thoughts.

I ask Terraformer, do you really think that two wrongs make a right ?

My goal in driving a vehicle along a roadway is to get from A to B efficiently and safely. 

It is my duty to obey the laws as they apply to the vehicle I am operating, not to police others by taking an action to try to prevent them from violating a law that I percieve they are disobeying.

My5cents - yes, it is your duty to obey the laws as they apply, as well as everyone else's. This includes the laws regarding speeding, aggressive driving, unsafe driving, seat betls, distracted driving, etc. However, not all drivers subscribe to this philosophy. We all know that there are no perfect drivers, everyone breaks the law at one point or another. That is a choice that the driver makes. No law or act will change this. My main issue with this "new" law, is that it caters to those who choose to disregard the law and threaten the safety of those other drivers on the road. There should not be one law for the majority and another for a select group, no matter what the circumstances.

I am not sure where you drive, but here in B.C., there have been signs advising slower traffic to move over since I started driving.

It makes me wonder where you actually stand on this issue, when you single out myself and Manig, and yet the comments of persons such as John Denver, go unmentioned.

ManiG, points out that "the law says.... the driver of a vehicle proceeding at less than normal speed of traffic".

He is quite right, not exactly the wording but the gist is there.

However, oh yes, there's always an "however", he is describing Sec 145 of the MVA that applies  to extremely slow moving vehicles, blocking the normal flow.

Recently the Province of BC has enacted Sec 151.1, which tell us that if we are travelling on a laned roadway in the left most lane where the speed limit is 80 km/h or more, on the approach of a vehicle, we must exit the lane.

No mention of speed high low or otherwise. 

Travelling in the left most lane, doing 10 km/h over the posted limit would not excuse you from obeying this section.

Prior to the enacting of Sec 151.1, we really didn't have a proper law that governed remaining in the left lane, when signs were not erected telling traffic to "keep right except to pass"

... "Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?"

Thanks for your reply, Mani; I'll do my best to respond.

How am I camping out in the left lane while I am driving 10 km above the limit?  Are you one of the those speeders too?

This would be dependent on traffic flow.  Firstly, thank you for admitting that you're a speeder.  Sounds like you're one of those speeders who chooses an arbitrary number (i.e. 10 km above the legal limit) that you have decided is appropriate for yourself and - apparently - everyone behind you.

This is pretty common, basically it's a decision to break the law with minimum risk of being pulled over, while getting where you're going sooner (hopefully) than if you obeyed the rules.

Me, I'm a driver who does his best to drive with maximum space around me at all times, particularly when traffic volume is heavy; this has nothing to do with the posted limit, but everything to do with safety.  Simply put, a collision cannot take place unless two or more objects try to occupy the same place at the same time; so the greater the space cushion around your vehicle, the lower the risk of collision.

Space cushion driving certainly isn't my idea - it was developed years ago by a leading traffic analyst by the name of Harold Smith, and many decades after it's origin, the Smith System remains the most advanced and effective Defensive Driving concept in the world.  It is taught mostly to professionals, including Greyhound Bus drivers (who log an amazing number of hours/kilometers on the roads with collisions a rarity) and RCMP drivers (who also log an amazing number of hours/kilometers on the roads, but I have yet to see any statistics released on their crash rates, although my friend Bob Beaudoin - RCMP Traffic Sergeant in North Vancouver for many years, and also chief instructor for their Motorcycle Division in Chilliwack - advised me that they were unacceptably high).

The law says "The driver of a vehicle proceeding at less than normal speed of traffic...."

Yup, that's what MVA Section 145 says, basically.  The difficulty is how one decides what 'normal' is!  But I can give you a hint on that - it's what the traffic all around you is doing, not what you think it should be.

If the traffic is jam packed ahead of you but moving faster than the left lane, then every one would like to be on left of course?  Why would I move to right when I know that lane is not moving well.  You have seen both lanes packed and there is no exit on left (highways) and people always wants to merge to the faster moving lane.  And that is normal.  It is just a courtesy not the law.  If you think the speeders speed no matter whether they pass you from left or right?  Then you and the law are partly responsible for the death caused by the speeder's head on collusion???  Okay, think about this, If i am in the bar drinking so much so that I can't control myself and forget about driving.  Would you allow if you were bar tender?  Why not?  If that can cause accident and death, what about speeding driver's? 

I'm sorry, but I'm not following your logic, here.  We're not discussing impaired driving, and I am unable to understand the reference to head on collision (or collusion) in respect to the highway situations (where there are normally barriers or medians between opposing traffic).

I'm also going to go on record (another unfortunate pun, sorry about that) as being no particular fan of John Denver, or his namesake in this discussion.

All the problem comes from speeding.

No, sir.  Speed, in and of itself, isn't actually dangerous.  Cops, paramedics, fire truck drivers, race drivers, high speed train drivers, pilots, spacemen - well, you get the idea of what I'm saying here - they all travel at high (and often 'illegal' when it comes to the first three) rates of speed on a frequent basis.  To say that speeding is 'all the problem' is absurd; though obviously, if all the vehicles in the world remained stationary, then collisions would cease.  Not going to happen.

You want to call left lane drivers "left lane blockers" just because you want to speed.

Bullshit.  And that's putting it mildly - see all of my previous remarks.

From interest, has anybody else out there noticed these previously mentioned dangerous drivers rocketing along at '200 km/h'?  Because I can only recall being passed by maybe one or two of those in 44 years behind the wheel.

I though my position was pretty clear.

It is that I am responsible for my vehicle and it's operation.  It is NOT my responsibility to block or impede another vehicle because I feel they are or want to break the law.

(the old: "if I exit the passing lane I'm helping someone speed")

As for who I was critcal of in their comments.  I felt that John Denver supported the same position I did and you for example felt it was "sensible" to not allow "a driver to bully their way around the road".

My rationale being that if a driver is acting aggressively, I would much rather that that driver/vehicle was ahead of me instead of behind, or beside me as he/she passed aggressively, annoyed that I tried to block them.

Yes, the other vehicle should do this, or shouldn't do that, but my responsibility is to my vehicle, not their's.

You stated that:  "this new law caters to speeders and threatens those other drivers on the road"

For starters the law doesn't even address the speeds of any of the vehicle involved in travelling in the extreme left lane. 

For argument sake lets say that yes, the vehicle approaching is exceeding the speed limit.

Your solution is to repeal the left lane blocking law and travel in the extreme left lane at whatever speed you have chosen and police the speed of other vehicles ?

By doing this, this will increase the safety on the road ?

Oh, and I drive in BC, in the Okanagan.

Well, this seems to be one of those occasions that, when all opinions are stated, that even though all involved think that their logic is sound, no agreement will be reached. So be it. Just as some drivers choose to speed above the posted maximum, or choose to operate dangerously and aggressively, or choose to operate while impaired, or choose to drive distracted, or choose to not wear their seatbelt, I choose to drive in the left lane at the maximum posted speed.  Because this is my choice, and obviously, no outside influence is going to change my decision, I will live with the consequences of that decision.

I, and likely the courts and DriveSafeBC, don't see "the choice" of disobeying a traffic laws as some form of a right.  Even if you are willing to live with the penalty.

Even if a person is willing to "live" with the consequences of the decision to disobey a traffic law, they have no "right" to disobey same and if such infractions are detected and enforce by the police frequently enough, eventually you will discover you don't have a "right" to drive, you have (sorry) HAD the privilege to drive.

Perhaps if you feel strongly, that disobeying Sec 151.1 is your way of making roads safer.  When you get pulled over and issued the ticket (worth $167 and 3 points), tell the police officer why you are driving in the left most lane contrary to Sec 151.1 and that you intend to continue to do so no matter what the police do or say.

He might be kind enough to send your sentiments to DriveSafeBC for their review.

What is it with our society that so many think they can pick and choose which laws they should obey.

I will likely need to wait until some time in 2016 to get a look at the ticket totals written in 2015. In the meantime, I can ask about partial results and let you know what I get.

Revisiting this thread, three years on from our preceding posts.

In 2016, police forces in BC issued (drumroll, please ... ) a whole 150 tickets under Section 151.1 Improper Use of Left Lane.

Out of approximately 400,000 tickets a year, that's an infinitesimally small drop in the bucket and it strongly suggests that there's no deliberate monitoring of the problem, despite all the new highway signs and markings.

I have checked the Greyhound crash statistics, ICBC crash statistics, I have driven all over Canada except in Quebec.  Everyone driving not only in Greater Vancouver knows there are plenty of highways with no median or divider.  I do what I do not being stupid enough to try to keep lots of spaces around you especially in Vancouver and have driver behind me honk or jump infront of me.  Driving has lots of common sense to use which I don't see on many drivers.  But how ever, I don't agree with the "competent driver" that I have to let the speeder pass just because the one violating the law coming on over speed and have to be squeezed in between the slower drivers on the right and speed up again????????  I am causing inconvenience to the speeders:)  Wow.....!!!

Every one, please check to verify the speed causing crashes are the highest.  Please any one do not compare driving on road with fighter jets, missiles or bullets!

I am done with this topic.

Such an easy concept that draws so much contraversy, KRETP. Drivers want to act like they are upholding the law by not allowing speeders past them in the left lane. Your supposed to drive in the right lane, so if your paying attention and catching a slower driver and see a speeder coming in the left lane, why do you feel compeled to slow them down rather than let them by first and then pass? #1 your not an officer and can't ticket them, #2 pulling to the left lane to slow them down as you pass slowly only serves to make that speeder mad and more agressive, so now you are compounding the danger, and once that speeder gets by you now, not only have you enraged them they will almost cetainly go even faster than they were originally. You could actually be contibuting to cause a crash when you think you are doing the opposit. Let them speed pass and then pass the vehicle in front of you. with any luck there could be radar ahead and they will get caught, then you can have your satisfaction and not risk being part of what caused a crash.

I think one of the most important things overlooked by people refusing to let others pass if they are speeding is that they are assuming that all speeding is dangerous.  I don't think you've done your research.  While I agree that excessive speeding can be dangerous, it is by no means a leading cause of collisions, rather it can be a contributing factor.  Human error and carelessness are far bigger contributors.  Why do you think so many jurisdictions throughout the country and the rest of the world have laws to keep the outside lane open for passing?  

And why would you want to block the left lane if someone wants to get by?  It has been shown time and again that this just causes frustration on the part of the following traffic (often several vehicles, not just one), and leads to following drivers taking chances they would not otherwise have to take to get past.  If you don't believe me, do some research and see what the experts have to say.

Think of it like walking on an escalator or moving walkway.  The courteous thing to do is move over and let traffic past you if they want to pass.  Don't try to impose punishment on other drivers for what you perceive to be unsafe driving solely based on the fact that they want to go faster than you.  You're clearly mad about them speeding, and they're clearly mad at you for not letting them pass.  Sounds like a recipe for road rage to me.  To my mind, a far greater concern is unskilled, incompetent drivers (of whom there plenty) that cause our insurance rates to constantly increase.

That shows speeding (is not dangerous?),,,,,,,,, Speeding is the leading cause of fatalities on BC roads according to ICBC,,,, http://www.icbc.com/road-safety/crashes-happen/Pages/Speed.aspx................ It is also a contributor to roughly 30% of crashes, which is likely on the rise the last few years as distracted diving has increased.

I agree human error is a major factor, but that just proves all speeding is dangerous, speeding causes a speed differential, which is the direct result in forcing all law abiding drivers & the speeders themselves to make more decisions, the more decisions that have to be made the higher the chance for an error. Unless you are suggesting that no drivers are allowed to follow the law.

Speeding cost's billions in BC every year, and of course so do unskilled drivers, but even what are at times skilled drivers can turn Incompetent fast. Road rage is the perfect example, it makes zero difference if the best skilled driver allows emotions to take over their task of driving, once any driver gets mad at other drivers, they are now just as bad if not worse than an unskilled driver.

In fact a calm unskilled driver paying attention and following the law is a far better driver than a skilled driver with decades of training that is mad,,,,, why you ask, it's because emotions cloud human judgment, if your not thinking clearly & calmly your skills are almost useless. Think of a Pro Golfer on the PGA, watch how their score goes up & their errors increase when bad emotions take over, have you ever seen a MAD PRO win a tournament? Their Great skills eliminated by bad emotions.

So ALL drivers that allow their bad emotions to take over just because they encounter a bad driver, or a driver making an error, in turn now also makes them a bad driver regardless of their skills, see how that works? And it's not the bad drivers making an error like blocking the left lane that causes road rage, it's EACH INDIVIDUAL that Allows their own emotions to be effected by someone else's actions, all drivers should Expect all other drivers to make errors, not get mad at them, that just compounds a bad situation.

speeding causes a speed differential, which is the direct result in forcing all law abiding drivers & the speeders themselves to make more decisions, the more decisions that have to be made the higher the chance for an error.

Fair enough, and well argued. But there's an anomaly, here; and basically I'm talking about the difference between traffic fatalities here in BC, compared to some other countries. Source info is from Wikipedia, here.

For sure, having speed differentials does force drivers to make more decisions. It forces them to pay more attention to both their own behaviour, and that of drivers around them. It requires that they respect rules about moving over for faster drivers from behind, and particularly puts the onus on a driver thinking of moving into a faster lane to think twice and do some calculation instead about relative rates of speed instead of just reactively moving over into the faster lane when they finally notice the Winnebago 50 meters ahead, not just about camping out there.

All of these countries enjoy a lower fatality rate per 100,000 inhabitants per year (Canada's being 6.0) according to the data.

Australia 5.4, France 5.1, Germany 4.3, Ireland 4.1, Spain 3.7, Netherlands 3.4, United Kingdom 2.9 ... and all of these countries, to the best of my knowledge, have fundamental Autoroute/Autobahn/Freeway/Motorway rules in place that demand that drivers must move over to the slower lane(s) if they're not passing anybody - in order to accommodate speed differentials, rather than fight them.

Which has to make you think.

I haven't driven in all of these, but I do know that in the Netherlands, you're expected to move over, and the same in Ireland and Spain. In France - where I once zipped from Calais to La Rochelle with the speedometer in the rental car pretty much pinned - it was totally necessary to follow this protocol, even with the posted limit being 130 km/h (Sacre Bleu!). Because the really fast guys would be blasting by.

And the UK (where I have driven often over the years)? Hell, their Motorway Entrance ramps (slip roads, as they call them) are often enough double laned for the intital stretcth, just to allow drivers to pass each other on the ramp before they even get to the merging point. As for trucks, they're not even allowed to use the fastest lane on the Motorway, that simple. And meanwhile, the police in Cumbria have lobbied for a raise in the speed limit on the M6 which has been stuck at 70 mp/h since the 60's - so as to make things safer, by allowing more space margins and less compression in the traffic flow.

So ALL drivers that allow their bad emotions to take over just because they encounter a bad driver, or a driver making an error, in turn now also makes them a bad driver regardless of their skills, see how that works? And it's not the bad drivers making an error like blocking the left lane that causes road rage, it's EACH INDIVIDUAL that Allows their own emotions to be effected by someone else's actions, all drivers should Expect all other drivers to make errors, not get mad at them, that just compounds a bad situation.

Essentially, I don't think you're wrong here. Emotions certainly can cloud a driver's judgment, and affect their behaviour. That's why 'Road Rage' has been increasingly cited as an underlying cause behind traffic collisions.

The problem is, pointing this out doesn't make a damn bit of difference to human nature.

And freeways, interstates, autobahns, motorways - whatever they call them - are essentially designed to allow traffic to move faster, safely.

No pedestrians, no traffic lights, no bicycles, no farm tractors, no intersections, no oncoming traffic, minimal gradient changes or curvature - everything in the design is fundamentally designed to promote higher speeds, safely. And inherent in that is the idea that if you're not passing someone else, then you're probably in the way of someone who wants to pass you - or will be very soon. So move over!

So being as speed differentials don't actually seem to be a fundamental trigger, when it comes to collisions - it's instead a matter of drivers paying proper attention to their driving environment, and following lane discipline rules that should have been more rigidly written and enforced decades back - and being as we can't do a whole lot about human emotion, across the gamut of drivers out there, from Class 7 teens to Class 5 seniors (and emotional balance certainly isn't something that can be easily measured on a Road Test to get a license or keep one) then the obvious answer would seem to be more stringent rules about Left Lane Blocking; and directing the cops to put away their radar guns, in order to enforce these rules.

So that we can all be safer.

How can you realistically compare crash rates? There are so many variables between Europe vs Canada & USA it's like comparing night to day.

From far superior driver training just to get a license in the first place, to higher quality vehicles that are more mechanically fit, then the roads themselves, the high speed sections of the autobahn any ways make our hwys look like back lanes. Plus the advantage Europe has in the vast network of Automated Enforcement that issues Points as well as fines where drivers have their license on the line and Insurance increased by getting caught speeding, tailgating ect: And yes, the left lane is well known for passing only and obeyed by the vast majority of drivers. Where as in North America it's almost ignored along with the speed limits & tailgating. There are more, but here is 8 that agree with what I just posted,,,,, http://www.techinsider.io/germanys-autobahn-vs-us-highways-compared-201…,,,,,,,,, So as proven in Europe, with higher speeds comes much more enforcement which is another downfall in North America, the sheer lack of enforcement and why the 2 places can't be compared and why the crash rates are on a Huge Increase in 2014-2015.

The research from the experts and stats in North America that shows speeding as a major factor in crashes & fatalities so this comment is an opinion rather than facts, correct?,,,,,, "So being as speed differentials don't actually seem to be a fundamental trigger, when it comes to collisions",,,,,,, Unless you have seen some proof that I haven't read, I sure would like to see that as I can't find any in todays North America to support your opinion.

Finally I believe it is important to point out how Emotions & Attitude can turn a skilled driver, even a professional driver into a BAD driver to all the readers,,,, you say,,,,, " The problem is, pointing this out doesn't make a damn bit of difference to human nature.",,,,,,,, If it helps even one driver realize their own mood & attitude can risk their life or those around them, my opinoin is it does make difference, and it should be taught in all driver education as human nature can be changed with Proper Knowledge.

How can you realistically compare crash rates? There are so many variables between Europe vs Canada & USA it's like comparing night to day.

Well, perhaps you can't. Yet countries - jurisidictions, whatever - attempting to reduce crashes and deaths will invariably investigate why other countries or jurisdictions seem to be achieving this. And I don't mean to be facetious, but I doubt whether Kiribati, Maldives, Micronesia, Palau, or similar countries are likely to provide much insight.

I could have picked Denmark, of course (rated at 3.5 on the previous scale, and with strict rules about left lane blocking); but they have strict rules about everything, and pretty rigidly enforced. A much more 'policed' state than Canada as well, when it comes to driving behaviour.

I considered Iceland (4.6) but I'm not sure they even have any multi-lane highways.

Perhaps I should have included Switzerland (3.3) but they're in the same class as Germany, only it's a much smaller country.

What I'm getting at, is that - rather than night & day - the European countries I chose were the closest countries in terms of civilized driving on multi-lane, higher speed, freeway-type roads to what we have here in Canada ... while also achieving a lower fatality rate. So if my examples weren't comparative, nothing else on this planet is.

And yes, the left lane is well known for passing only and obeyed by the vast majority of drivers. Where as in North America it's almost ignored along with the speed limits & tailgating. There are more, but here is 8 that agree with what I just posted,,,,, http://www.techinsider.io/germanys-autobahn-vs-us-highways-compared-201…,,,,,,,,, So as proven in Europe, with higher speeds comes much more enforcement which is another downfall in North America, the sheer lack of enforcement and why the 2 places can't be compared.

But surely, on this, we're very much on the same page? Essentially, I believe that the incredibly strong focus on speeding - while ignoring much else - is one of our fundamental problems, here. For decades, the cops have been sitting beside the highway pointing radar devices at us, in the belief that this is going to fundamentally change things; but it hasn't happened! All they have achieved is to cause traffic to bunch up more, and stay within 10 (maybe 20) km/h of the speed limit.

But when changing lanes without a signal, and following too closely, only make up - get this - 0.94% of all traffic tickets then something is seriously wrong, and no argument! The police are not addressing the fundamental issues. And if you're not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem, never mind the uniform and the authority you've been given.

The research from the experts and stats in North America that shows speeding as a major factor in crashes & fatalities so this comment is an opinion rather than facts, correct?

Well, just a minute, here.

Yes, it's an opinion, but what are they basing the data on? Police reports? I'm only asking, because my opinion is that the police reports have been largely self-serving; justifying the policing action they have been taking, while ignoring the fundamentals of driving that the Europeans demonstrate so well.

On one day recently, I drove past a 5-car rear-ender on the Stanley Park Causeway in the morning, and a 6-car rear-ender on the Oak Street Bridge in the afternoon. If the police attended, then I've no doubt that they would have blamed speeding as the cause; it's what they do. But that won't be ICBC's judgment! They will blame each and every driver who hit the one ahead with following too closely (even though nobody got a ticket, because the cops don't do that no more) and adjust their insurance category accordingly.

Finally I believe it is important to point out how Emotions & Attitude can turn a skilled driver, even a professional driver into a BAD driver to all the readers,,,, you say,,,,, " The problem is, pointing this out doesn't make a damn bit of difference to human nature.",,,,,,,, If it helps even one driver realize their own mood & attitude can risk their life or those around them, my opinoin is it does make difference, and it should be taught in all driver education as human nature can be changed with Proper Knowledge.

Emotions and attitude are absolutely, significantly, important; again, we're on the same page.

And indeed, in many cases, human nature can be changed with knowledge and education. Particularly if this is provided during their learning period.

Absolutely, there should be more and better Driver Education here; funding it should be one of ICBC's priorities. It should start in school, as would be the case in Europe, where everybody is pretty much taught how to be a pedestrian first, then a cyclist, and so on - seeing themselves as road users and participants in the whole process - accepting responsibility (or consequences) for their own actions, long before they're old enough to drive a car.

But even if the powers that be decide to embark on this - and they should, absolutely, if we wish to achieve the enviably low crash and fatality rates achieved by some countries - it will take at least 20 years before fundamental change will have resulted, in my opinion.

Meanwhile, we have approximately three generations of drivers using our roads already. Reading through this here Thread, you can see that more than a few of them need their opinions, and behaviours when behind the wheel, changed right here and now when it comes to making the roads safer.

And part of achieving this has to be a fundamental change in the way the policing of our roads is carried out, by the cops we do have assigned to this task.

Slower traffic, keep right. It's the law; so let's enforce it - for everybody's sake.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate item, but related. I saw this in today's local newspaper.

This article was rewritten on August 1, 2021.

Everyone follows too closely, mostly caused by someone way up the chain obstructing the flow of traffic. To ticket the person frustrated with the left lane hog by giving a not so subtle hint to GET OUT OF THE WAY is just... exactly the sort of thing that makes me have disdain for traffic cops.

The letter of the law.

According to the letter, it is illegal to make lane changes without signalling adequately for other drivers to perceive your intentions. Where are you?

It is illegal to operate a vehicle without DOT/OEM headlights. Where are you?

It is the blatant picking and choosing of which laws to enforce according to the letter that I find honestly... well I'm not going to be rude and offensive so I wont.

Come on man, you do nothing to change my perception that traffic cops exist only as a form of government allocated highway thievery,

Anonymous I agree with you. When I worked for the Provincial government I swore an oath to enforce the Act. I was not allowed to pick and choose. To do so would have been grounds for dismissal. I don't know if police officers are required to swear an oath, but they definitely should.

In my simple little mind once a person starts to put their personal prejudices into their work their integrity is gone and anything they do is suspect.

We constantly hear how speeding is such a hazard yet this is coming from the same people and organisation that show by their enforcement that they are biased. If they weren't then we would see thousands of tickets issued yearly for people failing to keep right. Section 151 I believe has a fine of $167, speeding starts at $138. At least someone has the sense to recognise which is a greater hazard.

Through the post in this thread it appears that all speeders are tailgates and just pounce on the vehicles in the left lane. I question every one of these posts. I do speed but I never tailgate. If someone feels I pounce on them I would have to say I question their driving ability. I didn't learn from a professional paid driving instructor, my Dad taught me and my brother. One thing he repeatedly told us is to check the mirrors. Your eyes should be continually checking around you and your instruments. If you only check your mirrors once every minute or so, yes, it may surprise you that I am behind you. If you are a competent driver there is no excuse for another vehicle to suddenly appear behind you. By admitting this you have shown that you are not paying attention to what is around you and by doing so are a hazard to everyone else on the road.

A safe driver is a courteous driver. Imposing your prejudices in your driving shows that ideally you should have your licence revoked until you can prove you are not a hazard on the road.

And as long as the people that are suppose to be enforcing the laws on our highways continue to only enforce a few of their pet regulations the accident rate will continue.

Posts are removed here for three reasons:

  1. They are off topic
  2. They are disrespectful
  3. I make an error

If they are off topic, I discuss with the poster and move them to a better spot.

If they are disrespectful, sometimes I remove a sentence or two and sometimes I ask the poster to revise before I will publish it.

If I make an error, I probably won't know about it until someone points it out. AFAIK, I have not removed any of your posts here.

You can see what you have posted by going to My account under DRIVESMARTBC in the left column. Click the Track tab and Track posts should be the default. All of your posts will be listed here.

Thanks for the tip on how to check my previous posts.

There was a topic on Keep Right Except to Pass and that is where I posted.

Thanks

James