Left Lane Blockers

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

A quick question for our esteemed site host: is there any data yet on the number of tickets that have been issued under Section 151.1?

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.

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.

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.

Thought I posted on this subject when it was originally started but don't see my comment?

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