A provision in HB 1305 concerning an obligation not to hang out in the left lanes has received some attention lately. I’m not sure how much coverage the actual text of the statute has received, so here it is:
SECTION 69. IC 9-21-5-9 IS AMENDED TO READ AS
FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2015]: Sec. 9. (a) A vehicle that travels at a speed less than the established maximum shall travel in the right lanes to provide for better flow of traffic on the interstate highways.
(b) This subsection applies to the operation of a vehicle:
(1) on a roadway that has two (2) or more lanes of traffic in each direction; and
(2) in the left most lane, other than a lane designated for high occupancy vehicles.
Except as provided in subsection (c), a person who knows, or should reasonably know, that another vehicle is overtaking from
the rear the vehicle that the person is operating may not continue to operate the vehicle in the left most lane.
(c) Subsection (b) does not apply:
(1) when traffic conditions or congestion make it necessary to operate a vehicle in the left most lane;
(2) when inclement weather, obstructions, or hazards make it necessary to operate a vehicle in the left most lane;
(3) when compliance with a law, a regulation, an ordinance, or a traffic control device makes it necessary to operate a vehicle in the left most lane;
(4) when exiting a roadway or turning to the left;
(5) when paying a toll or user fee at a toll collection facility;
(6) to an authorized emergency vehicle operated in the course of duty; or
(7) to vehicles operated or used in the course of highway maintenance or construction.
(d) A person who violates this section commits a Class C infraction.
Less remarked upon is the existing provision in IC 9-21-5-7, amended somewhat by current legislation which reads:
Sec. 7. (a) A person may not drive a motor vehicle at a slow speed that impedes or blocks the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with the law. A person who is driving:
(1) on a roadway that has not more than one (1) lane of traffic in each direction; and
(2) at a slow speed so that three (3) or more other vehicles are blocked and cannot pass on the left around the vehicle;
shall give right-of-way to the other vehicles by pulling off to the right
of the right lane at the earliest reasonable opportunity and allowing the
blocked vehicles to pass.
(b) A person who fails to give right-of-way as required by subsection (a) commits a Class C infraction.
People are having fun with the tacit accommodation of the fact that people speed, and I suppose that’s fair. But the concepts at play here aren’t that tough. Motorists aren’t responsible for enforcing speed limits. If you want to go the same speed as a motorist in the right lane, do it behind that motorist and not to their left. If you want to get in front of the person ahead of you, do it quickly.
Generally there seem to be two or three things that lead to people hanging out in the left lane – 1) Not trusting other motorists to also play by the rules, resulting in you getting trapped in the right lane; 2) Not being comfortable with your ability to use passenger’s side rear view (I speculate due to the inordinate number of mini-vans hanging out in the left lane); and maybe 3) being an oblivious jerk. This law would seem to be an attempt to address items #1 and 3 to some extent.
Also, when was the last time you saw someone pull over to the side when they had three or more cars behind them?
Note: plain roman text is language that is part of current law, bold text is language that is being added to the law.
I always figured it was 4) they’re not that good of a driver and don’t realize they’re supposed to be traveling in the right-most lane at all times. Hence, the appropriate penalty would be their license being revoked immediately and successful completion of drivers’ ed a prerequisite for it being granted again.
That said, given that there is an out for “obstructions or hazards make it necessary to operate a vehicle in the left most lane”, the poor condition of most Indiana roadways should mean that anyone pulled over for violating this law should just say “there were too many potholes in the right lane”.
On a related note, I’ve yet to have a trip to Ohio that wasn’t filled with Ohio drivers just toodling along in the middle lane at the speed limit. They must spend their money on better roads, not on training drivers.
(Mostly kidding. But not about the Ohio drivers.)
What makes me even crazier than this is when a school bus will have 40 cars behind them on a 2 lane road but they refuse to pull over and let everyone pass. (Steps off soapbox)
JoeBeck, I agree w/your #4. I would note though that Indiana didn’t make hanging out in the center lane illegal…only the left most lane. I don’t think people are supposed to be hanging out in the right most lane (unles they’re passing) when there are three lanes.
Now they need to call down those who fear 18-wheelers so much that they refuse to pass them, hanging out instead in their blind spot until a position opens up in front of the truck that they can shoot in to. If someone on the other side isn’t thinking the same thing.
Out here in cornfield country, you sometimes see slow moving vehicles pull of to the right for backed up traffic. Common exceptions are farm vehicles that are too wide to pull off and Amish Buggies.
What I wanted answered is this:
I’m starting to pass a semi who is travelling at 65mph. I’m doing 70mph, and the speed limit is 70mph.
A car screams up to my bumper doing 90.
Do I have to slow down and abort my pass, and travel at a slower speed simply because the person behind me is speeding?
Am I supposed to increase my speed to 90 as to not slow down the person behind me, and take the lesser fine of the two since the $500 fine for blocking is higher than the 20mph over the speed limit ticket will be?
There is no exemption in the law for passing.
If you had not yet begun to pass, you should get back to the right and let the faster car go by. If you were in the middle of the pass, I’d take my chances, jump it up to 75, get the pass over with, and get right. The probability of an officer exercising his discretion to enforce the law under those circumstances is pretty minimal.
Figuring a semi to be 80′ and giving yourself double that to get back safely (that might be excessive), you’re looking to cover 240 feet. Five miles per hour is 26,400 feet per hour or 440 feet per minute. So, at +5mph, you’re looking at something over 30 seconds to complete the pass. If you jump it to 75 mph (+10), you cut that to about 15 seconds of legal exposure and, if cited, argue that you were presented with a choice of obeying two laws which were in conflict. If you’re a stickler about never getting caught in such a conflict, however, you can slow down to 65 mph.
This is why this law seems so nonsensical.
I’m travelling at the fastest legal speed for the road.
If I continue to operate at the legal maximum, and only go into the left lane when passing, what is wrong with that?
I don’t want to park in the left lane to enforce a speed limit, but I should be able to legally pass at the maximum legal speed without breaking the law.
Why do I have to drive slower just so others can break the speed limit?
Speeding is malum prohibitum, not malum in se. In other words, there is nothing inherently wrong about driving a certain speed (unlike, say, murder). Speed is just something that has to be regulated so that you interact nicely with other motorists. The benefits of speed limits are largely eliminated by the dangers presented by congested traffic. So, if the law has to choose between a certain amount of speeding versus a certain amount of congestion, it’s a rational choice to allow speeding to prevent congestion.
If you add an exemption for passing, then the guy going 1 mile per hour faster than the person in the right lane is exempt and this law is useless. (I’m still guessing it won’t do much because, even though I’m in favor of the concept, I doubt it’s terribly enforceable.)
“The benefits of speed limits are largely eliminated by the dangers presented by congested traffic.”
That congested traffic is being caused by those that are exceeding the speed limits. If everyone were travelling at the speed limit, there would not be as many people trying to pass.
I still don’t understand how the law can compel me to break the law without exempting me from one of them.
For example, I remember my father getting a speeding ticket while passing someone on a two-lane road. The officer pointed out while the pass itself was legal, you are not permitted to exceed the speed limit, even while passing, even though it is safer to speed for a few seconds to decrease the amount of time you’re passing. So, in his case, passing a car that is doing 40 in a 45 by doing 50 was illegal, even though it was indeed safer.
I would also be fine with the law if it will put on paper that I’m exempted from a speeding ticket if I pass quickly to allow the person behind me to continue unimpeded.
I just still fail to understand how this law can be valid in its current state.
Speaking of nonsensical…
“That congested traffic is being caused by those that are exceeding the speed limits. If everyone were travelling at the speed limit, there would not be as many people trying to pass.”
Re-reading your reply, you’re saying I have to break the law as to not break the law if I have already begun passing, and I would agree. I either need to speed (breaking the speed limit law), or slow down to abort the pass, which could be seen as remaining longer in that lane than needed (breaking this new law), and also an unsafe maneuver if done quickly enough to avoid blocking, which would be reckless driving (breaking a 3rd law)
This law is rubbish. A law should not compel you to break another law.
You’re one of those people who will stop for emergency traffic when you see them, rather than when its actually safe to do so, aren’t you? The number of times i had to lay on the air horn because some idiot decided a blind hill or blind corner was where it was appropriate to stop and let me pass in a fire truck the size of an overgrown school bus…
Yielding the right of way in that situation means not camping in the left lane. SAFELY passing traffic means safely passing; if you want to pass the guy going 68MPH so you can run 70MPH, then safely pass him and get back over.
Did you seriously compare getting out of the way of someone who is speeding with yielding to an emergency vehicle?
To your question, no, I carefully consider where to pull over so as to be helpful and safe to our emergency responders, thankyouverymuch.
I agree with you about safely passing, and that is what I do, and I also think that should be common sense.
I just don’t see any exception for that in this law, and I see too many cases these days where the intention of the law has been ignored and only the letter of the law enforced, such as people convicted of buying too much sudafed even though it was clearly an error and not a drug deal.
I don’t think the law applies in your case.
You have encountered congestion and are going around it.
That is a judgement call. It would be easily resolved by adding an 8th exemption for passing.
I don’t believe the laws are in conflict.
You’re passing fine. The law just says that you need to get over to the right after passing that semi.
” a person who knows, or should reasonably know, that another vehicle is overtaking from
the rear the vehicle that the person is operating may not continue to operate the vehicle in the left most lane.”
That doesn’t seem to stop some in the Legislature, given some of the gems Doug posts at the start of every session…
I don’t drive expressways (this law alone would discourage me), but I would hate to be on the expressway and have to worry about the consequences of this law. I’ve always understood it to be the unwritten law that you move over for faster cars if at all possible, but it’s not always possible to do it safely. Add merging traffic and it looks like an accident waiting to happen. I must be mistaken, but I always thought semi’s were supposed to stay out of the fast lane.
I understand the frustration of having slow drivers in the left lane, but I really don’t like this law.
There are obviously any number of conditions and exceptions, but I suspect that the average legislator was thinking about the stubborn person going 50 in a 60 who refuses to get in the right lane. Then I pass that person on the right (isn’t that illegal?) as do the people in the parade in back of me. And when my wife takes a look at the driver, the person is talking on the phone. I think that person is a danger on the highway.
Stuart, going 50 in a 60 while not passing someone was illegal under the old law. This text was already law: “A vehicle that travels at a speed less than the established maximum shall travel in the right lanes to provide for better flow of traffic on the interstate highways.”
I’m sure the average legislator was trying to “fix” this, and that is very telling of their intelligence level.
This law is for someone who was traveling 70 in a 70 next to someone else who was also travelling 70 (or, in my case, they WERE doing 65, and as I pass them @ 70, they go up to 72, then settle in next to me.)
In such cases, the person travelling lawfully at 70mph must either break the law to accelerate past 70 to complete the pass, or be forced to go slower for a bit and get behind the idiot who will very likely start going 65 again after you’re not trying to pass him.
I used to be someone that ran 10+ over all the time. It was certainly easier, and this law gives me another incentive to go back to that. Hence my point that this law is encouraging unlawful behaviour.
So, when could this law be enforced?
For that person who feels entitled to do the speed limit in the left lane at all times, even when not passing another car.
Why wouldn’t someone who is already breaking the law (speeding) not just pass on the right? By definition, there must be room, right?
And why don’t they just take their seatbelt off too, while they’re at it?
I scrolled up to Doug’s original post at the top and re-read it to try to get some context for your line of questioning. Are you #1, #2, or #3?
#1. I am a cyclist, and get told how we don’t follow traffic laws. So, I now come to a full stop at stop signs when on a bike and set the cruise control for the speed limit when in a car.
I frequently run into the case where someone travelling 1-5mph below the speed limit (on their phone or talking to their neighbor, usually) is ahead of me. I then get in the passing lane, maintaining my legal speed, only for them to accelerate.
What is your answer to how I respond? Do I go into an arms race with the person next to me and keep speeding up? Sometimes I do this, as I used to travel 30+ over the speed limit in my more stupid days. This usually will solve the problem, at increased risk of my life or a ticket.
Do I slow down and pull in behind them, and then allow them to dictate a speed of less than the speed limit?
Or, do I just continue lawfully using the road at the speed limit?
Of those three, I usually would choose to maintain my speed.
What this law seems to indicate is that my choice to continue to lawfully use the road has been made unlawful by those who were already acting unlawfully, by speeding.
What the issue seems to be is that there are a large number of voters who don’t mind the gray area of speeding, and just want people out of their way.
I personally like to see laws more black and white.
If the speed limit needs to be increased, do that. I’m fine with that, and if it ever gets faster than I’d like to travel, I’ll happy park myself in the right lane.
However, don’t put two laws in conflict with one another. That seems to be exactly what has happened here, and no one seems to want to admit this.
*Expecting the retort: “What if your speedometer is fast and you’re not actually travelling at the speed limit, but 2 under?”
Fine, give me a ticket for travelling at less than the maximum speed in the left lane. That is at least logical.
I’ve been debating this issue with an attorney friend who insists that as long as he is doing the maximum legally posted speed (let’s call it 55 mph on 465) that according to section c) (3), he does NOT have to yield to a faster vehicle because c) states the exceptions to b), specifically the third point stating, (3) “when compliance with a law, a regulation, an ordinance, or a traffic control device makes it necessary to operate a vehicle in the left most lane;”
His argument is that by going 55 in the left lane, he IS in compliance with the law, which makes it NECESSARY to operate HIS vehicle in the left most lane.
When I pointed out that complying with the maximum speed limit can just as easily be done in the middle lane, AS WELL AS in the left lane AS LONG AS no one is attempting to overtake your vehicle, he shot back, “show me where the statute gives ANYONE the right to pass me above the maximum speed limit and I will move over. Otherwise, I am completely within my right to camp out in the passing lane as long as I am doing the maximum speed limit.”
So I researched the ENTIRE document, and while I saw phrases such as “a vehicle may not impede a faster vehicle in the left lane that is traveling at a “reasonable speed,” it did not define what a “reasonable speed” was. And in my friend’s interpretation, “reasonable” is defined as “the MAXIMUM speed limit.”
It really comes down to being a courteous driver. There are legitimate reasons to go faster than the posted speed limits, such as a medical emergency. I see idiots camping out in the passing lane every day on 465 doing 55 mph who believe it’s their right to become a self-appointed junior trooper, and all they do is cause those wishing to get around them to do so in an unsafe manner.
I’ve driven the autobahn and witnessed troopers pulling over drivers who didn’t yield the right of way to faster vehicles. It’s a SERIOUS offense in Germany. I wish more troopers would ticket such drivers in Indiana, because UNTIL someone like the person mentioned above gets a $500 fine that he can’t lawyer his way out of in court, people like him will CONTINUE to cause untold numbers of unnecessary bottlenecks on 465.
The closest clause I saw that might be debated as making it LEGAL to go 60 mph in a 55 mph posted maximum speed limit zone is where it addresses speeding in section 60 (or 62?), where 60 mph is the maximum speed limit listed for highways with more than four lanes, of which 465 has more than four lanes. (But someone might argue, “unless otherwise posted.”)
I’m not advocating speeding, but drivers going 5 mph have never concerned me. Drivers camping out at the maximum speed limit and refusing to yield to the 10 vehicles behind them who are ALL being forced to pass them on the inside lanes have ALWAYS bothered me. People who camp out in the left lane THINK they are forcing speeders to be courteous, while it is THEM who are not being courteous, and they cause more risk to EVERY driver around them.
I hope to awaken to hear my local news reporting on the first driver ticketed for impeding the reasonable flow of traffic tomorrow, as today is July 1st, the first day that this law becomes effective.
As I’ve said elsewhere in here, I don’t camp in the left lane. I do try to do the speed limit, or just over, and I’m not going to slow down behind someone I want to pass to make room for someone doing 20+.
That said, for sake of logical argument: Isn’t the person causing the bottlenecks the person who is speeding? If everyone were travelling at the speed limit, then there would be no bottleneck.
The CAUSE is the speeder. The camper is refusing to help fix this cause.
“What this law seems to indicate is that my choice to continue to lawfully use the road has been made unlawful by those who were already acting unlawfully, by speeding.”
You have options for how to handle the issue of speeding, like ask for higher taxes so the police have the resources to catch speeders, or call the cops and report the driver, or go to the police academy so you can become an officer and pull over people who drive like garbage. Or, ask your legislator to get this law off the books. Or, make it part of your campaign platform and run for office to get rid of the law yourself.
But as said above, being a “self-appointed junior trooper” and using your automobile to enforce the speed limit isn’t one of them.
“Isn’t the person causing the bottlenecks the person who is speeding? If everyone were traveling at the speed limit, then there would be no bottleneck.”
There are different speed limits for different vehicles on many roads, which explains why vehicles are supposed to travel in the right-most lane except where passing. Least that’s what I was taught n drivers ed.
If your concern is reducing traffic jams, you’d stay in the right-most lane. If your concern is speeders, then you’d stay in the left-most lane. I don’t see how these are positions that can co-exist.
“I’m not going to slow down behind someone I want to pass to make room for someone doing 20+.”
You checked your mirrors before starting that pass, right?
Because before I start thinking about a pass, I’m looking in the mirror to see who is approaching. If someone is coming up on me that fast, I wait to make the pass because I’d rather not deal with the road rage nor the resulting accident, laws be damned.
If that means it takes me 30 seconds longer to pass a car I’d like to pass, so be it. It’s safer.
And, I don’t care what speed I’m going, but when I see a cop behind me, even if I’m doing five under or five over the speed limit, I get over for him even if that means I tap the brakes.
Look, I’m going to comply with the law.
I was just here pointing out it is a BAD LAW because it puts a greater burden on someone who is following the speed limit than someone who is violating it
I have told my congresscitters I don’t like it, for what good that will do.
“I was just here pointing out it is a BAD LAW because it puts a greater burden on someone who is following the speed limit than someone who is violating it”
I don’t believe it puts any additional burden on drivers given that they are supposed to be in the right lane anyway except when passing, regardless of speed. Even when you’re running 5 over, you should be doing so in the right lane. This law doesn’t change that.
And as I’ve stated multiple times, if this law made an exemption for passing then I would have no issue with it.
As it is written, someone who is travelling 70 in a 70 zone, who stays right except to pass, may still be ticketed while passing if 3 people doing 90 line up on their bumper. It is 100% up to officer discretion and that officer may not have seen the other 3 do 90, but he will see the 3 people lined up behind the passing car.
All it needs, to be acceptable to me, is just an addition in the list of exemptions that state that if you’re passing, you won’t be ticketed. That’s all I want. :)
Are you trying to compare speeders and campers to which came first, the chicken or the egg?
You asked (perhaps rhetorically), “for sake of logical argument: Isn’t the person causing the bottlenecks the person who is speeding?”
But when following up with your answer, which was, “the CAUSE is the speeder,” you then contradict yourself by providing the CORRECT answer by adding, “The camper is refusing to help fix this cause.” Didn’t your momma ever tell you that two wrongs don’t make a right?
If you know there is a problem, (let’s call it the CAUSE, or as you refer to it specifically, the SPEEDER) and you refuse to help FIX the problem, aren’t you by definition part of the problem?
In other words, if you would simply abide by the law, which is to YIELD to faster moving vehicles so that they can pass you SAFELY in the far left passing lane, (regardless of if they are going over the posted maximum speed limit) would you not agree that your adherence to the law would PREVENT a bottleneck from forming behind you?
And to the 20 drivers who are IN that bottleneck, most of whom you are forcing to make unsafe lane changes to get around you, who do you think THEY think is causing the bottleneck? The vehicle immediately behind you who you illegally refuse to yield to? Guess again!
And to the other 20 of us in the middle lanes who are ALSO doing 55 mph (yet being forced to yield yet ANOTHER lane to the faster moving vehicles) because ONE _____ in the far left passing lane is too selfish (stubborn, self-important, etc.) to just allow everyone to pass him SAFELY on his left, who do you think WE see as the problem?
One self-absorbed ________ causes problems for 40 others. Now, all of those 40 individuals have to make quick, and sometimes less safe decisions, ALL BECAUSE one defiant driver REFUSES (your word) to play nice in the sand box. Just because you may think you’re within your LEGAL right doesn’t mean you’re DOING right! It’s called being a courteous driver.
Again, I am NOT advocating speeding, but this statute was ammended to allow troopers to issue citations to those who are a bigger danger to ALL who use the highways. The trooper isn’t going to issue tailgating citations to the 20 vehicles trying to do 60 mph BEHIND someone who refuses to yield the right of way, as he couldn’t possibly pull them all over. But he sure can issue a citation to the ONE vehicle who is CAUSING all that tailgating, REGARDLESS of whether that vehicle is doing the maximum allowable speed in the far left passing lane.
The fact that you are aware of the amendment, yet STILL believe you are within your legal right to camp in the far left passing lane at 55 mph while defiantly refusing to yield the right-of-way to faster moving vehicles only makes you a less courteous driver than you were prior to July 1st. But at least now someone can ticket you for being a bigger risk to those around you than the speeders you claim are the primary problem.
It doesn’t MATTER what I think. If you care to test your argument by continuing to be part of the problem, do so knowing that you’ll eventually be charged with a more expensive Class C infraction than those speeders receive, whom you claim are the cause of traffic congestion. (Because they can’t be ticketed if you prevent them from speeding) And don’t be surprised when other vehicle’s passengers begin videotaping your defiance and sending the footage to your local news stations and/or state trooper posts.
Drive courteously and go with the flow.
As I said elsewhere, I’m going to comply with the law.
I just don’t agree with it. It puts blame for congestion on those that were driving lawfully. I’d prefer that we actually enforce speed limits consistently with much higher fines, and raise the speed limits as needed. This system of it being such a gray area that depends on the personal philosophies of the ticketing officer makes for bad law.
I do have a question on your logic, though: How many people would you permit to cut in front of you in line before confronting them? If your goal is to be courteous, then wouldn’t you just sit back and let those that want to be rude go for it? That seems to be the position you’re supporting.