Traffic law interpretation - any cops here?

Georgia passed a fast lane obstruction law last year, I think. The interstate between my town and the next is 3 lanes wide each direction, and the speed limit is 70. The middle and right lane are rough and miserable to drive in my lowered Mustang or the old F250, so I usually run in the smooth left lane. I usually cruise at 80. That's about equal to most traffic but of course there are a few people that want to run 85. I typically move to the right as they approach - IF I can and if I see them coming.

But my question is - if the speed limit is 70, how is it legally possible to ticket someone for driving in the left lane at 70mph and holding up traffic? Aren't they the fastest traffic that should theoretically be on the road? For the LEOs among us, if you clock me at 85 and I'm obviously holding up traffic in the left lane, which ticket do I get?

If they see you blocking the left lane and holding up traffic and decide to pull you over, my guess is that they will get you for BOTH. They can prove that you were speeding and they can testify that you were failing to yield. They can also tack on driving dangerously, driving without a seatbelt, driving without a license, driving with expired tags...you get the idea. They don't have to ticket you for just one thing. Failure to yield is not speed dependent, it's like driving too fast for conditions or driving dangerously...it's at the officer's discretion.

ultraclyde wrote: But my question is - if the speed limit is 70, how is it legally possible to ticket someone for driving in the left lane at 70mph and holding up traffic?

Easy, two separate laws. You're not speeding but you are breaking the other law. Like being prosecuted for shooting someone even though you own the gun legally.

I am interested though to hear a Leo opinion in how this is enforced though - I imagine it's mostly for porple going grossly slower than traffic.

The intent of that law as I'm familiar with it is that it should not be used as a travel lane. If you're not passing and you're over there, you're in violation.

sesto elemento wrote: The intent of that law as I'm familiar with it is that it should not be used as a travel lane. If you're not passing and you're over there, you're in violation.

Yep, legally this is how it's supposed to work, you shouldn't be in the inside lane unless you're passing someone. There's a big disconnect between the law and enforcement there and I expect that will still be the case with the new law - as in cops will use it to bust people driving slowly in the inside lane and not on garden-variety faster left lane drivers passing multiple cars.

sesto elemento wrote: The intent of that law as I'm familiar with it is that it should not be used as a travel lane. If you're not passing and you're over there, you're in violation.

wow. That's got to be the most out-of-touch law I've run into in a long time. Does anyone really believe that people drive that way?

Interpretation of law is not an officer's job. Enforcement is. It doesn't matter if the cop understands the law.

It's the Judge's job to interpret law. If you appear before him, you will win.

ultraclyde wrote:

sesto elemento wrote: The intent of that law as I'm familiar with it is that it should not be used as a travel lane. If you're not passing and you're over there, you're in violation.

wow. That's got to be the most out-of-touch law I've run into in a long time. Does anyone really believe that people drive that way?

People should drive that way, instead, they camp in the inside lane, 5 under the limit sipping their toxic waste and texting instead of noticing they're impeding traffic until they almost miss their exit and almost cause an accident trying to get over.

PA has had left lane for passing only laws for years, but they're rarely enforced. Too many overdosed drivers to bring back to life on the tax payers dime and not charge with anything to actually enforce laws that could help most people and generate revenue.

ultraclyde wrote:

sesto elemento wrote: The intent of that law as I'm familiar with it is that it should not be used as a travel lane. If you're not passing and you're over there, you're in violation.

wow. That's got to be the most out-of-touch law I've run into in a long time. Does anyone really believe that people drive that way?

Well, I live in Atlanta, and I'm always passing someone, so I guess I always belong in the left lane.

I travel the highways around here a TON, I've never seen anyone get pulled over simply for being in the left lane and going the speed limit, so I'd have to guess it would be an extreme circumstance for the cop to pull you over. And yes, the cops do have to interpret the law, how else can they enforce it?

ultraclyde wrote: But my question is - if the speed limit is 70, how is it legally possible to ticket someone for driving in the left lane at 70mph and holding up traffic?

Speed is irrelevant. If you're holding up traffic in the left lane, you're in the wrong.

I'm a fan of the law, and I haven't received a ticket for breaking it. No one I know has.

But given the amount of interstate congestion here, particular around a city like Atlanta, the idea that one lane should be unoccupied unless someone is passing is just....asinine.

of course, this is government we're talking about. Reference SVRex's similarly-themed current thread.

1kris06 wrote:

ultraclyde wrote: But my question is - if the speed limit is 70, how is it legally possible to ticket someone for driving in the left lane at 70mph and holding up traffic?

Speed is irrelevant. If you're holding up traffic in the left lane, you're in the wrong.

Because I'm keeping them from doing something illegal?

Practically, you're right, I get that, but it seems like shaky logical ground.

EDIT: meaning - it's theoretically impossible to be holding up traffic if you're going the maximum allowed speed.

Like almost anything else I would guess it's at the officers discretion. Bumper to bumper traffic they wouldn't enforce it but in light traffic with a few cars stacked up behind you you'll get pulled over.

I have the opposite issue. Most states have minimum speed laws also. On highways, it's generally 20mph under the posted speed limit. Sometimes it's posted, sometimes not, but either way, it's usually on the books.

In major cities throughout the USA, I have sat on freeways doing ZERO mph. That's well below the minimum speed. How come nobody is handing out tickets for this?

ultraclyde wrote:

1kris06 wrote:

ultraclyde wrote: But my question is - if the speed limit is 70, how is it legally possible to ticket someone for driving in the left lane at 70mph and holding up traffic?

Speed is irrelevant. If you're holding up traffic in the left lane, you're in the wrong.

Because I'm keeping them from doing something illegal? Practically, you're right, I get that, but it seems like shaky logical ground. EDIT: meaning - it's theoretically impossible to be holding up traffic if you're going the maximum allowed speed.

Are you an LEO? No?

Then it's not your job to be an SJW when it comes to speed on the highway.

Apparently we have that law in North Carolina too! Several locals have told me their driver ed teachers told them to immediately move to the left lane so others can merge onto the highway. Bet those genius' did not know they were training people to break the law.

§ 20-146. Drive on right side of highway; exceptions.

(a) Upon all highways of sufficient width a vehicle shall be driven upon the right half of the highway except as follows:

(1) When overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction under the rules governing such movement;

(2) When an obstruction exists making it necessary to drive to the left of the center of the highway; provided, any person so doing shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles traveling in the proper direction upon the unobstructed portion of the highway within such distance as to constitute an immediate hazard; the centerline except as provided in G.S. 20-116(j)(4).

(b) Upon all highways any vehicle proceeding at less than the legal maximum speed limit shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for thru traffic, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the highway, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn.

Tennessee Passed a similar law a year or more ago. I was stoked, because I drive in what I consider the proper manner. Left lane is for passing. I see the law as a way to deal with the drivers we all hate, who obliviously park in the fast lane, and even when "flashed to pass", remain in the fast lane. These people, in my opinion, either don't know, or don't care about proper driving etiquette, and I suspect are the same who try to force their way forward when merging because they are the most important driver(s) on the road.

Unfortunately, people refuse to be civil, and then the legislation gets involved. For what it is worth, I have seen zero enforcement of the law, and zero changes in people's behavior. I suspect that as long as OP gets over when someone approaches from behind, there will be no ill consequences.

Klayfish wrote: And yes, the cops do have to interpret the law, how else can they enforce it?

Absolutely incorrect.

Their title is "Law ENFORCEMENT Officer". They function from their understanding of the law, but they DO NOT interpret.

I've been to court many times where the officers were simply found to be functioning from an incorrect understanding of the law, and the case was overturned when the Judge interpreted it.

I deal with the same thing with Code Enforcement Officials (who are equal to law enforcement officers in GA). They enforce what they believe to be correct, but they are often incorrect.

LEOs sometimes like to think they get to interpret the law. They are wrong.

z31maniac wrote:

ultraclyde wrote:

1kris06 wrote:

ultraclyde wrote: But my question is - if the speed limit is 70, how is it legally possible to ticket someone for driving in the left lane at 70mph and holding up traffic?

Speed is irrelevant. If you're holding up traffic in the left lane, you're in the wrong.

Because I'm keeping them from doing something illegal? Practically, you're right, I get that, but it seems like shaky logical ground. EDIT: meaning - it's theoretically impossible to be holding up traffic if you're going the maximum allowed speed.

Are you an LEO? No? Then it's not your job to be an SJW when it comes to speed on the highway.

I have no intent on holding anyone up on purpose. I will save my Social Justice Warrior work for more important topics that would result in threadlocking.

sheesh, I was just speculating about the logic behind the laws here peeps.

1kris06 wrote:

ultraclyde wrote: But my question is - if the speed limit is 70, how is it legally possible to ticket someone for driving in the left lane at 70mph and holding up traffic?

Speed is irrelevant. If you're holding up traffic in the left lane, you're in the wrong.

So if the speed limit is 70, I'm going 90 and cars behind me want to go 110, I'm in the wrong? Uh, no. Sorry. Well, I am in the wrong for speeding, as are the dopes behind me. But not for "holding up traffic".

ultraclyde wrote:

sesto elemento wrote: The intent of that law as I'm familiar with it is that it should not be used as a travel lane. If you're not passing and you're over there, you're in violation.

wow. That's got to be the most out-of-touch law I've run into in a long time. Does anyone really believe that people drive that way?

Out West, yes. I see it all the time.

ultraclyde wrote: I'm a fan of the law, and I haven't received a ticket for breaking it. No one I know has. But given the amount of interstate congestion here, particular around a city like Atlanta, the idea that one lane should be unoccupied unless someone is passing is just....asinine. of course, this is government we're talking about. Reference SVRex's similarly-themed current thread.

I strongly disagree with the notion that stay right except to pass would contribute to congestion. If we're talking rush hour, bumper to bumper type congestion, then that's one thing, you need every square inch of real estate just to fit everyone and the speed difference is usually negligible.

However, at pretty much any other time, the left lane parkers are a source of congestion. I'm thoroughly convinced that much of our highway traffic problems are an efficiency issue, rather than a capacity issue, i.e. we need to use existing travel lanes more effectively rather than add additional lanes. When someone parks them self in the left lane, regardless of whether they're doing 5 under or 20 over the limit, they're causing faster traffic to stack up behind them. What results is traffic getting clustered into packs and slowed down, all pretty much stuck at the lowest common denominator's speed, and choking both lanes, meanwhile BOTH lanes ahead may be completely clear for some considerable distance. It's inherently inefficient.

ultraclyde wrote: I'm a fan of the law, and I haven't received a ticket for breaking it. No one I know has. But given the amount of interstate congestion here, particular around a city like Atlanta, the idea that one lane should be unoccupied unless someone is passing is just....asinine. of course, this is government we're talking about. Reference SVRex's similarly-themed current thread.

You just described HOV and bus only lanes as well. Big empty lanes for special vehicles only.

Following the letter of the law, inside most lanes would be for passing only.

I've been told, by my dad so not sure how reliable it is, but I've been told there is a 3 mile limit for our passing lanes here. Meaning if you get into the left lane, you should pass and get back over within 3 miles, and there is authority to hassle you if you're just camping in the lane regardless of speed. Considering the amount of times I've gone to Erie by getting in the fast lane on 79 North and hanging out at 80mph(65 zone the whole way) and never had a problem of any sort, I'd say it's enforcer discretion.

If enforcement officials want to make anyone's life difficult they can. Take a good hard look at your states laws, traffic and not. It's amazing the stuff that is technically illegal.

Heck, according to law, oral sex is still illegal in the state of Virginia, but good luck enforcing that one.

The idea is also, there may be some difference between speedo's IIRC WA law says it has to be witting 5% at 55.

You may think your going the speed limit at 70, and someone else may think your going 3 or 5 mph under and really piss them off when you dont move over.

WA has this law, the prius drivers are happy to camp at the speed limit in the left lane....

Klayfish wrote:

1kris06 wrote:

ultraclyde wrote: But my question is - if the speed limit is 70, how is it legally possible to ticket someone for driving in the left lane at 70mph and holding up traffic?

Speed is irrelevant. If you're holding up traffic in the left lane, you're in the wrong.

So if the speed limit is 70, I'm going 90 and cars behind me want to go 110, I'm in the wrong? Uh, no. Sorry. Well, I am in the wrong for speeding, as are the dopes behind me. But not for "holding up traffic".

Nope. You're still holding up traffic if the right lane is open.

It's easy guys. If there's faster traffic behind you, get out of the left lane as soon as reasonably possible. If you're passing a line of semis, keep passing them but get over when you're done. If a car is about to merge, move left (you're passing them) and move back over when done. If the car behind you pisses you off, just move over and let them go. There's no benefit staying left and creating conflict and awkward passing situations.