saw this on another board....

TastinGood · November 9th, 2003, 04:54 PM

Our interstates are littered with signs informing slower drivers to move to the right lane.

The law here is that if you impede the flow of traffic in the left hand lane you are able to be fined no matter what speed you (or the other car) are going.

As for the Honda having a right to be in the road...yeah, it does. But how are we to know that the Honda didnt change lanes directly in front of the drunk, leaving him absolutely nowhere to go?

We dont know anything and that's all im saying.

We shouldnt cast any stones yet.

**MovieStuff** · November 9th, 2003, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by TastinGood:
"A person shall not operate a motor vehicle continuously in the left lane of a multi-lane roadway whenever it impedes the flow of other traffic. ?27-51-301(b)"

Yes, but "other traffic" is defined as those going the speed limit; not speeders. If you are the only car on the road and you are going the speed limit in the left lane, you are not breaking the law. Agreed? The abrupt appearance of speeders coming up behind you in the left lane doesn't suddenly negate your legal rights to drive the speed limit in that same lane.

On the contrary, the SPEEDERS are breaking the law and are required to slow down and maintain a forward separation from you of one car length per 10 miles per hour of the speed they are traveling. If they rear-end you due to excessive speed, I can guarantee that they will get the ticket, not you. If the law were enforced as you suggest, then you would get the ticket for traveling the speed limit in the left lane, and that's just silly.

The law in question is designed to prevent people from choking the roadway through irrational driving habits, such as driving side by side at the same speed limit or driving slower than the posted speed limit in the left lane, which would make people have to pass on the right, which is where people driving slower than the posted speed limit are supposed to go.

Again, despite popular interpretation, just ask any patrol officer if speeding in ANY lane is legal and he will tell you no. He will also tell you that the definition of "slower drivers" is people going slower than the posted speed limit. Any other interpretation of the law would create a field day in traffic courts everywhere since it would imply tacit endorsement of speeding in the left lane. If that were the case, then what would be the point of posting speed limit signs?

TastinGood · November 10th, 2003, 02:43 AM

Yes, but "other traffic" is defined as those going the speed limit; not speeders

As defined by who? YOU?

If you would like to call the Arkansas Highway Patrol and ask them specifically then I'll find you the number.

When the law was passed a few years ago, they made it abundantly clear that speed was not a factor. They had articles in the paper quoting the Highway department on this issue!

Did you not go to the link I provided? It shows state by state what the law is. Many states is shows that you must keep right IF you are going slower. On others (such as Arkansas), speed is NOT a factor. You simply cant impede the flow of traffic no matter what the speed.

**MovieStuff** · November 10th, 2003, 03:16 AM

Originally posted by TastinGood:
As defined by who? YOU?

And your interpretation makes more sense? I don't see anything in the law you posted that states that speed makes no difference; only that you can't impede the flow of other traffic. Where does it say that speeders have the right of way?

Originally posted by TastinGood:
If you would like to call the Arkansas Highway Patrol and ask them specifically then I'll find you the number.

Sounds like a good idea since I asked a local highway patrol officer and he said I was spot on. You are not allowed to speed in any lane, at least in Texas, and I was told specifically that "slow traffic" means people going less than the posted speed limit.

Beyond that, I can not fathom a law in any state, including Arkansas, that says a law abiding citizen must give way and make room for someone that is breaking the law. Again, why would there even be the need for speed limit signs if people are allowed to drive as fast as they want in the left lane, aren't required to slow down, and law abiding drivers must simple get out of their way?

I'm sorry but your interpretation of the law just makes no sense to me but, hey, if you've got that phone number handy, then let's find out if I'm off base, eh? Post it and I'll give them a ring. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong but it makes zero sense to me. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Roger

[ November 09, 2003 11:26 PM: Message edited by: MovieStuff ]

TastinGood · November 10th, 2003, 03:29 AM

501-618-8285

Be specific when asking the Q and try not to present it jaded.

I would ask:
"Is it against the law to impede the flow of traffic in the left hand lane on the interstate even when obeying the posted speed limit?"

Since shit like this never goes my way, I'm sure you will get some jacked up patrolman that doesnt know shit. In that case I guess TG man will hafta take over and go directly to the top.

**Tard** · November 10th, 2003, 03:36 AM

I believe MovieStuff won this discussion.

**MovieStuff** · November 10th, 2003, 03:53 AM

Originally posted by reved:
I believe MovieStuff won this discussion.

I wouldn't be so sure. It wouldn't be the first time that there was some illogical law on the books, regardless of what I think.

Originally posted by TastinGood:
I would ask: "Is it against the law to impede the flow of traffic in the left hand lane on the interstate even when obeying the posted speed limit?"

I think the best way to ask the question is what defines "other traffic"? Does other traffic mean people going slower than the speed limit or does it mean all traffic, regardless of speed? That's the real catch here.

After all, "impeding the flow" is really subject to whether or not the other drivers have somewhere else to go, right? I mean, if you are going the speed limit in the left lane and the right lane is blocked with semi's or slower traffic, then that would definately be a situation where rear traffic was impeded because you would be in the way (never mind that they would have to be speeding and breaking the law to pass you). However, if the right lane is free and clear, then you really aren't impeding anything at all because there is plenty of roadway for all concerned. If they're not going to pay attention to the speed limit signs, then they certainly won't think twice about passing on the right!

Just kidding. Sort of. I'll call in the morning and see if any of Arkansas' finest can make some sense out of this because it certainly doesn't seem logical that traffic at less than the speed limit must keep to the right but people driving the speed limit can't be in the left lane, either. I'd like to know where the person driving the speed limit is supposed to drive! [img]confused.gif[/img]

[ November 09, 2003 11:55 PM: Message edited by: MovieStuff ]

**Aaron Brown** · November 10th, 2003, 05:35 AM

I believe drunk or intoxicated drivers (and I know some people out there who drive high or drunk) would be fairly treated if their rides are taken, their right (or privilege, which ever the reader prefers) to drive taken forever, and it made a felony punishable up to say...ten years if they are ever caught driving again. That's right, I think it would be fair for the act of driving itself to be a crime for them.

If there is something even more nasty, I'd say it was fair too.