Carpool Lanes and Lane Discipline.

One of the biggest problems plaguing U.S. drivers and traffic-flow lies with inefficient lane-usage due to poor driver-training, self-righteous drivers, too much focus on simple-minded myths such as 'speed kills' and over-enthusiastic enforcement of unrealistic speed laws. Throwing extra lanes or 'carpool' lanes at the problem doesn't noticeably improve traffic efficiency for the majority of drivers.

In Germany, drivers enjoy higher average speeds and fewer accidents per mile. The 'speed-kills' proponents should really consider and research this: they drive *faster* than us on average but have fewer accidents per mile. This is due in large part to better driver training but a social phenomenon which is heavily peer and police enforced, and that is lane discipline.

Lane discipline, simply put, is about being at the right speed for the lane, allowing faster traffic to pass and making effective passes yourself. Slower traffic on the right, passing on the left, no exceptions. This means, if you're not passing, you're not in the left (fast) lane. If you're going the same speed as the guy to your right, you're a rolling roadblock and should not be in that lane to begin with. If a faster car is approaching from behind....you don't become citizen-cop and block him, you move over *before* he gets to you so he can pass without losing momentum.

Sadly, American drivers get the giant fail-horn when it comes to these simple acts of courtesy, and it's no wonder our freeways are a snarled mess of rolling roadblocks with drivers heads firmly planted up their posteriors, self-appointed officer Stouts who think it's their duty to slow-down faster traffic, and slowpokes who think they have a right to any lane they happen to find themselves in.

Of course, we can't totally blame American drivers, because political pressure and police enforcement and has centered so much around myths such as 'speed kills' and the former, '55 saves lives'.

For those who've driven on a California freeway recently in free-flowing conditions, the average speed is around 75-80. Going 65 in the 'fast' lanes would simply slow down the freeway and create a slalom course that faster drivers are forced to navigate. Some of those faster drivers are going to be very pissed off about a rolling roadblock, which results in a faster, potentially-angry driver who is now taking more risks among additional lane-changes. Naturally, this is going to lead to more accidents, and the culprit here is not outright speed as is often-blamed but the lack of lane-discipline resulting in roadrage. If the slowpokes stayed to the right and allowed faster traffic to go through, there would be fewer people forced to break momentum and happier drivers all-around.

Here's a quick quiz for the safetycrats who bleat, 'speed kills':

Which is the correct answer to this DMV permit-test question:

When merging onto a freeway, you should be driving

a. At or near the same speed as the freeway traffic
b. At the legal freeway speed limit
c. Slower than the freeway traffic

The correct answer is a., 'At or near the same speed as the freeway traffic'.

So, if the freeway is going about 75, and the speed limit is 65, there's a mixed message here, especially since most drivers have gotten tickets for 75-80 in their lifetimes. On one hand you have a speed limit with a severe financial penalty for being 'caught' driving with the flow of traffic, but logic indicates that less speed difference or disparity is safer than being much slower or faster than surrounding traffic.

It's also safer for people to make fewer lane-changes, but a lack of lane-discipline forces not only more lane-changes, but potentially-angry lane-changes. Those who are terrorized by 'maniac drivers' all the time are probably making the mistake of driving too slowly for their lane-choice and thus, they tend to be on the receiving end of more than their fair-share of road rage.

Here is how surface-street (non-freeway) speed-limits are established:

A traffic engineer sits out there with an unmarked car and surveys the speed of at least 50 cars on a given stretch of road in free-flowing conditions. The road should not be within 150 feet of a traffic control device such as a stop sign or traffic light, and not on a curve. The engineer measures the 85th percentile speed and this is what the prima-facie limit is based on, barring extenuating conditions. The 85th percentile is considered to be the amount of people who drive at speeds 'safe for conditions' based on the road, traffic, weather, etc.

However, the freeway completely ignores this methodology, and in fact, the freeway limits in CA used to be 55, hence the outdated phrase, '55 saves lives'. The 55 mph limit was prompted by the gas crunch of the 70's, and had little to do with saving any lives. When this low-limit was lifted, accident rates *went down*. The 65 mph limit on CA freeways actually improved things and evened out traffic flow...especially considering the modernization of vehicles over the years which can easily handle the higher-speeds.

The MUTCD is the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. This is the federal manual which all states must be in majority compliance with regarding speed limits, roadsigns and markings, etc. This manual also warns against speed limits which are artificially low for the same reason....artificially low speed limits may make citizens feel safer and generate lots of revenue for the city, but will invariably result in more accidents.

When drivers take an artificially-low speed limit seriously (prompted by enthusiastic ticket-writing), citizens slow down and the 85th percentile driving at speeds safe for conditions will encounter those slow drivers, resulting in more lane changes and you guessed it, more accidents.

Higher limits tend to 'even' out the traffic flow, as long as the higher limits relate to the 85th percentile of measured drivers, since the slowpokes won't be encouraged to drive even slower, and the faster drivers aren't going to be blocked as much by slowpokes. Overall, it means less speed disparity and thus, fewer accidents.

So if the 85th percentile speed works for surface streets, why isn't this logic applied to freeways? I am sure any measurement in free-flowing conditions would show an 85th percentile of 70+, and the 65 mph limit is encouraging slower traffic to think their slow speed is ok in even the fastest lanes of a freeway going 75-80, though smarter slowpokes will avoid these faster lanes for self-preservation.

The artificially low-speed limit on freeways is tantamount to a speed-trap, as the 65 mph limit in most places ignores the 85th percentile speed. This is a cause of greater speed disparity, increased lane-changes and more accidents than if the speed limits were more realistic and realistically-enforced with more emphasis on lane-discipline.

Carpool lanes are an ineffective band-aid. If drivers practiced effective lane-discipline, there would be far more efficient-use of the lanes...even on a two-lane road. It's almost comical to be on a 5 lane freeway and then sure enough, some arse-tard is in the number 1 (fast) lane, driving the exact same speed as the guy to his right. If the person didn't have his head squarely up his bum he would be in the lane to the right, going the same speed as his road-block buddy but in front or behind him without being the source of road-rage.

In addition, the carpool lane is a farce when drivers can qualify for this lane by carrying a child. Last I checked, children cannot drive, at least not very well. Why on Earth does a soccer mom get to bring her gigantic land-barge into the carpool lane just because 2-year-old Timmy is in the child-carrier? How does this take any driver off the road or benefit anyone? What next, do we start at conception and let the preggers mom go into the carpool lane? After all, she's driving for two, right? It's re-god-damn-diculous. If more than one person qualifies you for the carpool lane, that other driver should be at least 15 with a valid driver's license, otherwise we're not taking any cars off the road, and the carpool lane is tantamount to a breeder-lane. I'd say that's a little-bit retarded.

Motorcycles qualify for the carpool lane, but they take hardly any space, are gas-efficient, take hardly any room for parking and it's good to encourage riders not to drive bigger cages. As a motorcycle-rider myself, I benefit from the carpool lane directly, but I'd be all for removing all carpool lanes. They just don't work for the majority.

Another issue is hybrids. Hybrid-cars in CA are allowed in the carpool lanes with a solo-occupant, but only if they have the special state-issued tags. They've stopped handing out these tags though, probably due to the sheer number of hybrids on the road and the obvious tactic of buying a hybrid simply for use in the carpool lane when commuting.

The search for alternative fuels presses on, and saying 'hybrid' in 5-10 years will be like saying 'vehicle' today. The majority of cars will be some kind of alternative-fuel or electric vehicle and the lower-carbon footprint reward of the carpool-lane will be moot. Of course, my smart (car) doesn't qualify me for the carpool lane even though it's the best MPG gas-powered car in the U.S. right behind the hybrids, takes up way less space to park, doesn't have a bunch of batteries to dispose of later and costs 10k less. ;) There are other gas-powered cars which are very 'green' but are disallowed from the carpool lane with a solo driver. The hybrid-carpool benefit simply won't work in a day and age where every auto-manufacturer is 'going green' and moving into hybrid technology.

All it takes is one slow-ass vehicle to clog the carpool lane and the lane becomes much less effective, and this goes for giant buses too. Ok sure, they are definitely carpooling, but isn't a bus too big for a carpool lane? Why are we encouraging a giant-arse bus to go ALLLLLLL the way across all the lanes to the carpool lane, and then go alllll the way back to exit the freeway? That's completely stupid. Buses and other multi-axle vehicles should not be allowed in the carpool lane and should stay to the right where they belong with the trucks and other slow, multi-axle traffic. After all, we don't see tractor-trailers in the carpool lane just because there's a toddler in the front-cab, do we?

So yeah, carpool lanes aren't fixing anything, but are a boon to a slim minority with specially-tagged hybrids, those who ride motorcycles and people carrying other adults or non-driving kids.

If we simply emphasize lane-discipline over speed-myths, remove carpool lanes and improve driver-training (including proper cell-phone use and no god-damn texting while-driving), I think we'd be better off.

-dB-