The idea I came up with awhile ago was to build a network of motorcyclists willing to attach a sign to the back of their bike, that reads (something like), "You're causing traffic by being in this lane at your speed - please move to right as soon as it's safe to do so." The motorcyclists would make their way in front of the slow left-laner - so that the sign is visible to the slow poke - with the hopes of persuading them to move to the right lane.

Meanwhile, also on the sign would be instructions for the other drivers out there, who witness the value the motorcyclist provided, to send a little micropayment electronically to the motorcyclist as a thank you.

Maybe this takes the form of a grassroots DIY movement where the motorcyclists handle all this themselves, or maybe there's an opportunity for a company to exist that creates the signs and facilitates the micropayments - and in return takes a cut of each micropayment (a la Patreon).

Obviously this assumes that all this can be achieved safely and legally. Thorough testing would have to be done on that front.

Let me know if anyone wants to kick around this idea further - even if just for fun.

get more people to ride motorcycles. an oft-cited study [1] shows that a 10% increase in motorcycle ridership would cut time lost to traffic by 63%

1: http://www.acem.eu/images/stories/doc/pressreleases/2011/PTW...

Motorcycle fatalities already make up a hugely disproportional number of the total highway fatalities in the USA. And half of those fatalities occur in single-vehicle accidents.

In TX, all highways have clear signs saying "LEFT LANE FOR PASSING ONLY", and guess how many people notice them?

I've also known people who think it's OK to be in the left lane if they're going the speed limit.

Do you think these people will be educated by waving a sign in front of them from a motorcycle? They'll just get angry.

I would think it's OK if there is traffic in the other lanes too (otherwise you should go back to the lanes on the right).

But why does it bother you? Do you think it's OK to go above the speed limit? Just curious.

Yes, that's common sense.

>But why does it bother you? Do you think it's OK to go above the speed limit? Just curious.

What I think about going than higher than the speed limit is irrelevant. If you aren't passing by going the speed limit, you should not be in the left lane too. Why shouldn't you? Well:

1. Because it's against what the law says!

2. Because it slows down the flow of traffic.

3. Because it creates a road hazard, as people who actually try to use the passing lane for passing will have to slow down if a vehicle merges at a slower speed.

4. Because this actually makes passing impossible, which kills the whole point of the passing lane.

5. Did I say it creates a road hazard already? https://lifehacker.com/help-your-kids-record-and-edit-a-fami...

Motorcyclists have enough trouble as it is.

Unless there is someone in that lane going the same speed, or slightly slower, which is very common in a two-lane road near where I live.

There are also people who drive rather dangerously out of frustration when they cannot pass, making the entire situation more dangerous. The problem is that the slow drivers have been taught that "driving slow = correct", and that everyone around them must be doing it wrong.

If we put half of the focus we do with speed to things like this, our roads would be much better for it.

They do not feel like they should do something, like drive faster or slower to allow traffic to flow around them.

This causes much more dangerous traffic situations, because traffic gets bottled up, and there are always a few cars that want to go significantly faster, and aren't afraid to drive more dangerously out of frustration.

Those drivers who drive more dangerously are seen by the slow drivers in the front to be the real problem. The drivers in the front then feel more vindicated in their "correct" driving style.

Now imagine that you grew up somewhere where only senile old ladies park in the left lane (preferably with left blinker on). “Blood boiling seething rage” is about right when I moved to Seattle. I’ve since become at peace with shitty driving, else I was going to have an aneurism.

That “push” you refer to to get folks out of the left lane? From my POV they made a bunch of noise on TV, but haven’t done shit. The left lane sure isn’t any better than it ever was. Nope, made some noise for a week, back to business as usual.

It's just so insanely bad whenever I go back up there to visit. You'll spend 10 minutes going 59mph in the left of 5 lanes and never be able to change lanes, make an exit, make it past the person in front of you.

And to add insult to injury, the WSP sits there with laser speed traps every 10 miles just in case you dare go 61mph.

Since the port shut down in Portland I see so much stupid stuff on I-5 as the increased semi traffic + left-lane campers can turn the 2-3 lanes into a gridlock and cause all sorts of dangerous situations.

Given the choice between what you describe---an orderly set of traffic at near the speed limit---or a free-for-all in which inevitably an aggressive lane-changer clips someone at 85mph spreading blood and metal all over the highway and stopping traffic for miles? Maybe I should move to Oregon :P

The assumption that a set maximum speed is the safest for all drivers is erroneous. There are many factors at play and a proper safe speed depends in part on the driver, the driving conditions, and the car they are driving (and much more).

Unless you are in very heavy traffic, forcing people to go slow or worse to pass you on the right is causing a much larger safety issue.

If we are interested in improving safety imo we should be focused on things like vastly improving driver education and requiring any driver to show knowledge, understanding and skills related to driving - including and especially on high speed highways. In California, you can get a license without ever actually driving on a highway (or "freeway") - which is absurd.

Please compare death rates from countries around the world (including Germany): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobahn#Safety:_international...

It's much harder to get a license in Germany than it is here in the US!

The motorway death rate in Germany is almost half what it is in the US.

I urge you to think about this and question your assumptions.

I don't understand the desire for people to want to exceed the speed limit, even if as you maintain, they are capable drivers in suitable conditions with a suitable vehicle. The speed limit should just not be exceeded, except when needed to expedite an overtake. Whether you believe you are capable of safely driving 85 is irrelevant if the speed limit is 65.

> forcing people to go slow or worse to pass you on the right is causing a much larger safety issue

You are pinning an argument that I never made. I was never defending left-lane bandits. If someone is driving 10 under in the left lane, yes that's bad they should stop that. But if all 3 lanes are moving steadily at the speed limit, you have no right to insist that people move to accomodate your desire to exceed the limit.

You are bringing up Germany to suggest that it's safe to have faster speed limits, but then mention that licensing requirements are much more stringent in Germany. I wish the US had such requirements, we might then have a safer culture of driving! You can't take Autobahn rules and try to make them work in the US because the level of driving ability is so poor.

> Unless you are in very heavy traffic, forcing people to go slow or worse to pass you on the right is causing a much larger safety issue

If traffic is heavy in all lanes, I think most people would agree you just need to relax and go with the flow on a highway. That applies just as much here as it does on the Autobahn in Germany.

However, if traffic is not heavy - Oregon like California is a "keep right" state - so if you are in the left lane and someone is coming up behind you, you need to yield - regardless of the speed limit.

It's not just the law, it's also the safer thing to do.

I would definitely be in support of higher posted speed limits if, as in Germany, it also came with stricter driver training. Sadly I don't see that happening in the US.

Still I don't think it was fair to call me a troll.

I think it's clear now you weren't "trolling". Your original response seemed to me so against the tide here that I thought you might be intentionally antagonizing. My apologies.

It also takes many hours of driving with a trained driving instructor and a full hour practical test plus a genuinely hard theoretical test to get a license.

Edit: I grew up in Germany and when I moved to southern California traffic terrified me. It was much slower than traffic on the Autobahn but the chaos was just terrifying. Oregon traffic is super slow but still pure chaos compared to what I've experienced anywhere in Europe.

Driving slow as shit and obliviously or passive-aggressively blocking traffic impedes traffic flow, causes tailgating, incites road rage, and does nothing pleasant whatsoever.

Both reasonably slow and fast drivers can coexist if they follow some basic rules. Always be aware of vehicles around you. Don't cut people off. Let people in. Don't abruptly unless there's an emergency. Keep the passing lane open unless traffic is very heavy.

Its incredibly infuriating; I can totally relate to your sentiment. But there's a special place in hell for those dummies who won't even listen when I blink my headlights, signalling politely to them to please leave the left lane. About 80% Texans do so, and I'm happy. But the 20% that don't, I flip them off every time, since they fucking deserve it.

Man, that's harsh! If these victims of yours are doing 45 on the interstate then a flash and a honk is certainly in order, but I sincerely hope you're not acting this way to people doing 75 when you want to be doing 90. In any case, if someone's going a little slower than you, as long as it's not jeapordizing your safety (i.e. backing up aggressive drivers behind you), then ask yourself why do you have to be in such a hurry?

I see far too much aggressive driving that seems needless, given the very real risk of serious injury or death. While I agree that slow driving can be just as dangerous as fast driving, all I ask is that you try to keep to the speed limit and only exceed it reasonably when safe to do so, keep a safe distance around other vehicles, and keep the bird on the steering wheel :)

A little civility and due regard for the fact that everyone wants to get home in one piece!

Rate of speed is irrelevant. If you are not actively passing a vehicle, you have zero reason to be in the left lane. This assumes something resembling fairly open roads - stop and go traffic of course is wildly different.

What is a safe speed is a different discussion. So many folks have the attitude of "I'm doing 8 over already! They shouldn't be going faster than me! I'm not moving over! I'll show them!" while acting like a petty highway vigilante. Nevermind they are the most dangerous person on the road as people blow by them in the right lane rightfully pissed off.

> A little civility and due regard

And I would say the same. Left lane hugging may be one of the most unsafe behaviours on the road aside from not moving over when someone is stopped on the shoulder - and I've noticed a high correlation between the drivers who do neither.

Well, aside from left lane exits, upcoming forks, and that the left lane is where special limited-use lanes tends to be, and, most critically...

> This assumes something resembling fairly open road

If someone has bothered to build a multiplane highway in the US, it tends to only rarely be so underutilized as to resemble fairly open road. Even if it's not “stop and go”, much of the time it is continuous traffic at some speed in all lanes, not sparse traffic in the right lane (or even the lane just to the right of the leftmost) and no significant traffic in the lane to the left allowing one to use the right for all regular travel and only move left to pass and then return to the right.

And the induced traffic effect means that adding additional capacity doesn't actually change this meaningfully.

Rate of speed is relevant for two reasons. First, there is a posted speed limit. Second, kinetic energy is proportional to the square of velocity. All else being equal, an accident at 90mph is going to be far more dangerous than one at 60mph.

> If you are not actively passing a vehicle, you have zero reason to be in the left lane.

The scenario under discussion was all lanes of traffic driving steadily at the limit. In such a scenario, you have zero reason to need to pass anyone. Surely you must agree that all lanes driving the limit is better than forcing everyone in the left lane to move over so that a few people can drive in excess of the limit? Having all lanes utilized at the limit is clearly the most efficient way to generate the most traffic throughput.

> Nevermind they are the most dangerous person on the road as people blow by them in the right lane rightfully pissed off.

Wait, so you're saying it should be acceptable to blow past someone who's already doing 8 over the limit? What are you thinking of, 15 or 20 over the limit? That's ridiculous, you have no "right" to be be rightfully pissed off because you can't drive 20 over the limit!

You're a prime candidate for anger management classes. If you get so stressed over something that minor, better get good insurance for your cardio problems later on.

Left hand lane is for slow drivers, Right hand lane is those going faster. When many of you lot come to my country, you suddenly get a light on and realise that your road rules are those of a drongo and you appreciate that you are now driving in a sane world.

It's 2017. We have cameras, "repeated failure to move right for faster traffic" should not be a hard ticket to write to a high standard of proof.

My biggest gripe about drivers in Oregon is the people that zip in and out of lanes at high speeds without signaling and the amount of people in city traffic that simply don’t look where they’re going.

The second lane from the right is for people driving faster than people in the right lane.

The left lane is for people driving the maximum speed limit. People weaving in and out of the left lane so they can pass people who are driving at the maximum allowed speed are a problem.

Because instrumentation is imperfect, two drivers who believe they are driving at maximum allowed speed could be driving at different speeds. Ideally, there would be enough lanes for people to travel constantly in the second from the left lane at maximum speed limit, and to move into the left lane to pass somebody who's instruments have them traveling slightly slower. But traffic is never ideal, and extra lanes are very expensive. So people need to chill when the driver in front of them seems to be traveling 2mph below the max speed limit. On a 60 mile commute this won't make more than 2 minutes difference in your arrival time. Probably closer to 10 seconds.

Keep right except to pass. Period.

Everybody traveling the same "maximum speed limit" is a fantasy and rarely exists in reality. There are lots of good reasons for traveling over the speed limit (quickly passing to avoid prolonged travel in close proximity to another car, for example).

Left lane cruisers inevitably lead to long queues in the left lane with empty lanes to the right, which leads to people passing on the right, tailgating, and a host of unpredictable situations that increase the danger on the road much, much more than simple speed (duh, many speed limits are arbitrary and political, not based on some absolute "maximum safe speed", which is a ridiculous notion anyway for roads that carry both sports cars and heavy tractor trailers).

Your prescription creates situations in which it is literally impossible to drive safely (and frankly, I'm sick of finding myself in these dangerous and completely unnecessary situations because of Americans' insane (and sometimes illegal[1]) driving practices...I don't want to race anybody, I just want to get to my destination safely and efficiently). Even choosing to waste your time being the slowest car on the road in the right lane, you end up being put in danger by cars trying to right-lane-pass with dangerous closing speeds up to dangerously close distances.

Keep right except to pass.

1. What you describe is actually illegal in many places: http://www.mit.edu/~jfc/right.html

I certainly never said that speed limit plays no part in the equation, but I believe that safe speed for a given combination of vehicle and road and traffic conditions is much more significant than the legislative limit.

Your question works just as well when the example is reversed: if someone is blatantly disregarding lane discipline, why should I expect them to drive safely in any other regard (and why wouldn't I try to put as much distance between me and them as possible)?

200mph vehicle in this case is an asshole if: a) she doesn't slow down and leave a safe distance between you and her in order to let you finish passing b) she otherwise creates a dangerous situation from excessive relative speed, which would probably be the case most of the time if she's going that speed around other traffic

Both alternatives are equally common, either you slow down to 60 and let the 200 car pass, or you stay in the overtaking (maybe speed up a bit of of courtesy) and let the 200 guy slow down. In my experience the faster usually has higher priority unless the traffic is very heavy, because by going faster they also disappear faster and don't hog the left lane for as long as someone overtaking at a slower speed.

I don't understand why people want to pick fights with other people while driving. A person traveling way too fast is clearly does care about acting dangerously, why the hell would you want to aggravate that person? The best outcome is nothing happens, the worst outcome is your death.

Plus, if you're blocking these people, you're also preventing them from getting a speeding ticket.

Back before speed cameras, it was useful to aggravate such folk, just a little, so they would speed up. If you gamed it right, you could set up a little convoy, and sit in the middle. At night, you would watch for brake lights ahead, and flashing lights behind.

That is ridiculous. If the vehicle in front of you is traveling 75mph and you want to travel 80mph, it is not impossible for you to drive safely. If the vehicle in front of you seems especially dangerous to be behind, it is still not impossible to drive safely.

I recently got run out of my lane by a semi who swerved in from the left right on top of me in the far right lane. The semi then kept swerving from the right shoulder to the left shoulder erratically. The driver was obviously extremely impaired and re-passing was risky. But it did not make it impossible for me to drive safely.

I drive a two-lane highway everyday that has no reasonable alternate route. The posted speed limit is 55mph. It has double yellow lines along much of its length. I frequently get stuck behind somebody poking along at 45mph or slower. I fully understand how frustrating it is. But that doesn't mean I can't drive safely.

I'm not talking about situations with two vehicles on the road. What happens with regular traffic is that you get someone driving 75mph in the right lane and another driving 75mph in the left lane, and it's game over for the whole highway. Once a few more vehicles accumulate, there's no safe driving stance. If you stay in the left, a gap develops on the right and people coming up to the jam pass to the right and then unsafely merge in. If you stay on the right, people passing others on the right are closing on you at ridiculous speed, or you're stuck driving a couple of feet away from another vehicle (on your left) that's tailgating and being tailgated and jockeying for position.

Taking the stance of "I'm traveling the speed limit, so I can stay in the left lane as long as I want" ignores the reality that there are other drivers that don't necessarily agree with you. Staying right except to pass minimizes the risk to everyone involved, accommodating both conservative drivers and aggressive or unsafe drivers, and lets everybody coexist. Staying left increases the danger and promotes road rage and other unsafe driving behaviors such as tailgating and right-lane passing.

Too many people take the attitude that such a situation would force them to pass on the shoulder, or to cross the median and drive the wrong way on the other side of the freeway. They have no other option. They were forced to take drastic measure because there was no other choice.

Of course there's another choice. Slow down. Yes, it is frustrating. Yes, it is inconvenient. Yes, yes, it is many undesirable things. But it is an option and it is safer.

What I described is what actually happens in that scenario, and unfortunately I only have control over my own actions, not those of "everyone behind them".

If you're deliberately ignoring reality and blocking a line of traffic, telling yourself, "these people don't have to be dangerous", the only things you're accomplishing are self-delusion and making the road more dangerous.

Stay to the right except to pass. It's really not that difficult.

You must live somewhere there aren't left exits.

The "I'm following the law, screw moving over for anyone " attitude when applied in the left lane is exactly the problem that's causing this discussion.

>So people need to chill when the driver in front of them seems to be traveling 2mph below the max speed limit.

This attitude is exactly the problem.

No, that person needs to stop making a rolling road block and move over. Even if I'm going 10+ faster than the next lane to my right I'll move into the next open spot and slow down if there's someone who comes up behind me. It's just basic manners. It's the exact same at 55mph as it is at 85mph.

Does this sound like a utopia to you, or a nightmare? Do you think this would make traffic more optimal, or would it cause untold safety issues?

If somebody in the left lane is traveling at the legal maximum speed and it causes traffic to stack up behind them, does this create the optimal traffic pattern or a safety hazard?

You might point out that most accidents are caused by speed differentials and involve somebody traveling much slower than the rest of traffic. I am still unclear why that would be blamed on the slower driver if everyone else is breaking the law.

The result is the guy in the back is going to be speeding up and slowing down around the speed limit. That is extremely annoying. If you haven't been this guy, I can only assume your always the guy in the front cruising in the fast lane causing 19+ people behind you to get angry and want to kill you.

Basically, travel in the right lane, unless your going to put the effort in and pass the person in the right lane within a reasonable time-frame (say in under a minute). Otherwise your just creating more problems. Wishing that isn't true doesn't make the problem go away, its just creating unsafe conditions for other people, who are frequently just trying to drive as safe as possible too.

Why do we always leave off 3 and 4? The angry posters here are so focused on 1 and 2, but don't seem to acknowledge 3 and 4.

A typical family sedan in the late 70s had a double-digit top speed. And those "recommended" speed signs that say you should do 35mph around a corner, were actually accurate. If you dared to take a 35mph recommended speed corner at 36mph, your tires would be yelping.

In a modern car, you can take those casually take those corners at 55mph; aggressive cornering starts at double the posted speeds.

It's the same thing with the freeway. Going 80mph in a modern car is probably safer than a 1980s car was doing 65. Today's Civic has the cornering, acceleration and braking performance of a 80s Ferrari.