Hacker News Reader

Comment by roflchoppa | Hacker News Reader

Man I really hate the new HOV lanes, there are too many negligent drivers that drive below the speed limit, at least with a carpool lane you could overtake.

View on HN

Is this a Bay Area specific thing? The terms "HOV lanes" and "carpool lanes" are used interchangeably in my experience. Are you just calling out separated lanes? The reason for the separation is that traffic in those lanes is often moving much faster than the other lanes which makes it very dangerous to give people the possibility of pulling into that lane unexpectedly. The ideal HOV/carpool lanes should have two lanes to allow passing and be separated from the rest of the lanes to promote safety. The 110 in Los Angeles is a great example and it uses the same transponders with switches that the article is discussing.

In my experience, the vast majority of HOV/carpool lanes are single lanes, although some stretches like the 110 and the 91 are doubled up and are a much better experience. It's hard to believe the 405, of all places, is a single HOV lane and it bunches up pretty much continuously.

Although, on the 91, I don't know that it uses transponder settings since there's a dedicated "3+" lane when you approach reading areas, which are situated right in front of CHP buildings (so they can see if you're really 3+?)

They are synonyms, but parent is talking about separated roadway for HOV, that you can't merge into / out of at will.

Aren't all HOV lanes separated? Any that I've seen in Canada and the eastern US only allow you to merge at dedicated locations. The new ones on the 400 in Canada actually have a merge lane appears for a few hundred metres before shrinking down again, even though there's no physical barrier, it's all just paint.

No. There are several HOV facilities where it's just a regular lane, especially for 'part-time' HOV facilities (which are basically "this lane is HOV during rush hour, regular otherwise"). For example, HOV lanes on the NJT: https://goo.gl/maps/pKzjvAgFUhac1bva7

I don't think that's the kind of separation they're talking about. It's technically illegal to cross that yellow line, but I've never heard of anyone getting in trouble for crossing out and back in to go around a grandpa going 45 in a 70. There are some HOV lanes in Florida that actually split into an entirely separate side road and some that have those soft rollover columns you can drive through but it will scratch up your car so it's really only for emergencies.

Exactly. There is a difference between not allowed to merge and not physically able to merge.

Merging not being allowed is still dangerous because people don't always follow the rules. It might even be more dangerous than lanes that always allow merging because then at least drivers in the faster lane can prepare themselves to expect merging.

A separated lane makes it impossible (or at the very least potentially damaging to the vehicle) to merge.

Here is an example of what I think is the ideal HOV setup[1]. There are two lanes so a single slow driver can be overtaken and there are physical dividers that prevent unexpected merging. You can also see the toll signs mentioned in the article that display the passenger number set on the transponders as discussed in the article.

[1] - https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9392023,-118.2796649,3a,75y,...

Yeah that's a pretty good HOV lane in my opinion (as a non city planner lol). Sometimes you still get two slowpokes side-by-side, but it's pretty rare.

Before the changes talked about in this article, the HOV lanes on US101 in NorCal were all "open access". You could enter and exit them at any place you wished, just like any other lane.

That's the case for many other highways with HOV lanes in NorCal as well.

I imagine the main difference is that most of these "open access" HOV lanes are time-limited; outside of the morning and evening weekday rush hours they're not HOV lanes. It makes more sense to have stronger separation for full-time HOV (or toll) lanes.

He's referring to the people that drive whatever speed they want to in lane #2.

I was under the assumption that HOV lanes cannot be crossed over (double or single white lines) while carpools are dotted and are open to traffic flowing in and out.

Of course you can only use it as an overtake lane in none-carpool hours, but now that’s not even an option.

The California DOT says they are synonymous[1]:

>High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, also known as carpool or diamond lanes

[1] - https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/hov#:~:text=W....

There's no distinction between HOV and carpool; they're just different names for the same thing. Whether or not the lanes are separated with designated entry/exit points or are open-access is a matter of local policy and design for that specific highway.

I'd frequently get stuck behind buses, box trucks, and vehicles towing trailers. It's astounding how the latter two are allowed. I somewhat understand municipal buses in an effort to ensure more people ride, and it wouldn't be as annoying if it weren't coupled with the other two.

Wow, I just checked, and you can legally tow travel trailers in the TollRoads, except for the 91 expressway here in SoCal.

https://thetollroads.com/help/faq/396

Do you like to merge onto a 65 mph highway going 40? Do you like to drive your Prius in the left lane without passing anyone, with no one in front of you, and a trail of cars behind you?

Welcome to Silicon Valley! You'll fit right in!

People tend to bring their regional driving habits with them and they’re all in conflict.

Buck-twenty in a 70s Japanese tin can for me baby.

If I find myself stuck behind a slow driver, it is very likely (statistically) to be a prius.

I'm uncertain if it is the demographic that buys a prius, or the techno display that rewards frugal driving.

But that applies to every lane in CA. The equilibrium seems to be staggered traffic in every lane going the same speed so that no one can cut you off and you know someone is filling your blind spots at all times. Oddly enough the right-hand lane is often free (mostly on 101N between Gilroy and San Jose) since no one wants to interact with merging traffic (one of the very few traffic laws/suggestions anyone follows).

If you instead just think of everyone who drives as very lazy, unengaged, and completely checked out - this is how you get the behavior of traffic in the bay area. Everyone doing everything they can to not have to signal, to change lanes, to slow down or speed up, and to avoid interacting with other traffic.

The issue here is that people choose it in an non-optimal way and thus it makes many people having to do a lot more to get around others.

And, yeah, the right lane is what I end up having to go into to get past people all the time because they create those walls constantly. And they're not wanting to interact with merging traffic because they're lazy.

Since when is aggressive driving a virtue? Some people are more patient than others, that's all.

Since when is staying out of the left lane unless passing and not creating walls considered aggressive driving?

Is there a traffic rule that says you're not supposed to create "walls?"

Yep; stay to the right except to pass. It's in most DMV manuals and driving courses. It's not a (enforced) law like it is in some places.

EDIT: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...

Thats not what your linked law says, it says:

"any vehicle proceeding upon a highway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time shall be driven in the right-hand lane"

Some states are much stronger:

"Impeding the flow of traffic in the left lane is punishable by a fine of up to $200."

https://www.txdot.gov/driver/safety/highway-driving.html

along with:

"After you pass someone, move into the right lane once you've safely cleared the vehicle."

Yeah, except the last time I got in to this, it turned out that Texas was one of the very few states with a well-written sane driving rule.

Executive summary of Texas driving law: you must stay as far to the right as you can, without crossing the marker to the shoulder; if you pass, you must do so on the left, without impeding the flow of (oncoming) traffic.

Actually, to lazy to dig it up, but TX has these huge lane sized shoulders on many roads. They are called "improved shoulders" and there are a half dozen cases where they are legally used as lanes. Including the case of a single lane road where someone is stopped in the main travel lane turning left, the shoulder may be used to pass them! (On the right).

The more common (legal) use though is as a turning lane.

Indiana has one of these too, and I _loved_ it. Blocking traffic is super unsafe for all kinds of reasons:

- Sometimes people need to get by (emergencies)

- You're a blown tire / unexpected road hazard away from swerving into the car next to you

If you're driving the same speed as the car next to you, feel free to tap your breaks, let them ahead a couple lengths, and then tuck in behind them. It's safer!

I was an aggressive driver when I was younger. Always 5-10mph over the limit, pass at every opportunity, threshold braking at every stop, flooring the gas pulling away from each, generally ignoring warnings to slow down on curves, etc. I only ever got in one very minor accident (I hit a wooden sign that was so rotted it broke at the base and didn't even leave a mark on my bumper) but did have a few close calls (coming up to an exit with traffic too fast and fishtailing into a spinout on the interstate, thankfully not hitting anyone.)

Then I decided to gather data. My daily commute was about 15 minutes, maybe 10 miles of mostly 2-lane highway, some turns I had a stop sign, some didn't, so a bit a variation and reasonable opportunities for my aggressive driving. I did an experiment for a few days where I would drive either as aggressively as I normally did, even kicking it up a notch for science, or just chilling out and taking it easy; and timing how long the drive took me with either style.

After a few trials, I found that the super-aggressive driving did save time over the relaxed style; but it was less than 30 seconds, an amount that could easily be lost or gained by chance at the one stoplight on my drive. And as a bonus, with the relaxed style, when I arrived at my destination, I was actually more relaxed, with my pulse around 70 instead of 90.

I've stuck to a more relaxed style ever since. There have been more than a few times where someone who was in a hurry passed me over a double yellow line and flips my the bird for having the nerve to drive the speed limit and zooms off, and then a mile or two down the road I pull up right behind the exact same driver at a stoplight or other non-passable thing, and I feel that I've made the right choice.

> and then a mile or two down the road I pull up right behind the exact same driver at a stoplight or other non-passable thing, and I feel that I've made the right choice.

This is what we in the business call confirmation bias. As many times as that's happened - I'm sure there are many times where they also didn't get stuck at the traffic light. Yet - you never saw them. Thus you never thought about. Thus... we call it confirmation bias. Interesting.

Sure, but the rest of the post describes how they did a proper experiment.

Eh. Idk if I’d call it proper. It’s no different than the “proper” experiments that have a trial of 5 people to test a new drug.

Problem is that they only did it for a few days. That’s not enough time for the margin of error to be very good. We all know traffic varies a lot week by week and day by day. Variance in just timing of the damn street lights is enough to make 30 seconds easily. You hit the stop light at the wrong time where I live - you’re sitting for a minute or more and that’s a big sway on a 15 minute commute.

Yes, I only did the experiment for a few days. (it was 20-odd years ago so I don't remember the exact details, but I think I did it maybe 3 times in each direction, less than a week total.) Is there variance? Sure. That's kind of the point - any amount of time I actually saved was more than swallowed up by the variances. In the end, the tiny amount of time I could save was not worth the heightened stress level.

But in the end, the experiment was for me and me alone. If you'd like to run your own more rigorous experiment and show how much time you can save by weaving through traffic, go right ahead; I've found what works better for me.

Are you suggesting that there's lots of time that a driver passes me over a double yellow line, flips me off, and I never see them again? Absolutely. TBH, I never think about them, because they don't affect me. Neither do the ones that I pull up behind, but those make me laugh and feel good.

I'll take lazy Bay Area drivers over aggro Los Angeles drivers any day of the week

> right lane is what I end up having to go into to get past people all the time because they create those walls constantly

Are these "walls" already traveling 5-10 MPH above the speed limit, by any chance?

Doesn't really matter, the speed limit is a sham anyway. We often point to how everything is better in Europe, try going to Portugal and sitting in the fast lane and not passing at 150kph (18 mph over limit). You'll have someone on your bumper, flashing their high beams within 30 seconds.

One question I've never heard an answer to, when someone suggests it's alright to hang in the left and middle lane as long as you're doing the speed limit, is ... how do you decide which law you're going to disregard? Because "slower traffic keep right' does not have a 'unless you are going the speed limit' exception.

Right, and that's the thing. The general rule of thumb is that if you aren't going faster than the traffic in the lane to your right, you should move to the right, and keep moving to the right until the traffic to the right of you is slower.

Speed limits aren't really important to this particular discussion. In the US, at least, they're set mostly based on observed traffic (85th percentile, even, I believe), and not based on any real assessment of what's safe. And there are also political and funding issues at play (consider in the 1970s there was a 55mph federal max speed limit law that was intended to increase fuel efficiency in order to lower dependence on foreign oil).

I consider speed limits to be more suggestions; what matters most is that you keep up with traffic and stick to the lane that most closely matches your desired speed. If you're uncomfortable with the speed necessary to keep up with even the rightmost lane, you probably shouldn't be driving on that road anyway.

In regions where they enforce the laws written about moving over for traffic - you get pulled over even if you're going above the limit.

Flow of traffic is more important than speed. Now if you're going the speed limit in the right most lane (not well below the speed limit) then you'll not likely have an issue even if you are "impeding" traffic at that point. It's more about taking up the left/passing lanes.

Btw - these rules exist even for single lane roads. You will need to pull over for traffic behind you even if you're going the speed limit or above. Generally there is some advisories or rules about 3 cars being behind you.

I'll happily skirt the line of the "slower traffic keep right" if it means inconveniencing the self-entitled, aggressive drivers that are willing to break the speed limit but are too lazy to actually try to take action to get that speed limit raised.

Hey man, how about you just figure out some way to relax on the drive instead of psychotically swerving around people? In order to shave a couple of minutes off your commute, you're putting yourself in mortal danger (and worse: you're endangering innocent people who don't actually deserve to die in a fiery car wreck)

Here are some suggestions:

1. Move away

2. Move closer to your job

3. Rob a bank and then retire, since you're risking death every day anyway

If you think going into the right lane is risking death - you shouldn't be on the road. You clearly are not good at risk assessment and should not be trusted with a vehicle.

Every lane change that anyone makes significantly increases the risk of a crash vs. just staying in the same lane. This is basic driver's ed right here.

Passing on the right is illegal most places for a reason: it's harder for the driver to your left to see you. The whole point of the convention of having faster traffic to the left and slower to the right is to increase predictability of behavior.

I agree with the parent you're replying to. Chill out and stop weaving in and out of traffic. Yes, it's annoying that people don't move to the right to yield to faster traffic, but ultimately you only save seconds or a small number of minutes. The risk -- assessment of which you seem to be not particularly good at -- isn't worth it. I'm not saying I follow my own advice 100% of the time, but I am under no illusion that I'm being safe when I don't.

> Every lane change that anyone makes significantly increases the risk of a crash vs. just staying in the same lane.

Ah, yeah, that's why you see 10,000 people dying every second from changing lanes out on 101.

Get off the roads guys. You're really bad at assessing risk. If you think CHANGING LANES is going to KILL EVERYONE then you are in the same group as flat earthers as far as critical thinking goes. Stick with caltrain if this is how you guys truly feel. Your ideal mode of transport I'm sure. It's only got one track going each direction - can't even change lanes!

Nobody's complaining about changing lanes. You clearly implied above that you have to weave over to the far right, pass cars on the right, then weave back to the left to pass more cars on the left. That behavior is unacceptable. It might only be a 1/5000 chance of causing an accident, but when hundreds of idiots do it every day, you end up with tens of thousands of car crashes in the Bay Area every year and so many deaths they aren't even newsworthy.

I don't like having to duke it out with dangerous idiots like yourself every day on the road, so I rent an apartment a mile from my office.

Again - you have no sense of risk assessment. Glad you’re not on the road.

https://lmgtfy.app/?q=yearly+car+deaths+california

When driving your own car is outlawed in a couple of decades, I'm going to be pissed, but then I'm going to remember talking to psychopaths like you and just grudgingly accept it

Generally what I've noticed on the Peninsula (like driving 280 N/S or sometimes 101) and the South Bay is that people drive like they should be in the left-most lane the farther away they are from their exit. This means regardless of what speed they'll be driving, they tend to gravitate toward the faster lanes and inevitably create traffic. Not only that, but many of these people then cut across all 4 or 5 lanes of traffic at the last possible minute because they realize almost too late that their exit is next and they don't understand that in most cases they can just use the next exit if they miss the first one.

Not to defend shitty drivers but many exits up the 280 and 101 on the peninsula don't have easy turn arounds if you miss an exit. If you miss an exit you sometimes have to go a ways out of the way to turn around. This is especially the case on the 101's exits. You can hit lots of traffic, lights, and no u-turn intersections before being able to turn around and fight the same back to the on-ramp.

Then that means the driver should plan to be in a lane close to exiting as far back as necessary to avoid dangerous maneuvers. Even if using a GPS, it'll usually say which exit you need to take; just combine that with the sign markers every so often that say the upcoming exits and you'll know how soon the exit you need is coming up. It's really not that difficult.

Again, not to defend shitty drivers, but this commentary is largely impractical on the 101. Many exits on the 101 are poorly designed cloverleaf style exits and signage on that freeway is terrible.

The cloverleaf exits are very long meaning to get on the off ramp you have to merge into the right lane earlier than the signage suggests. It's easy to get trapped in the faster lanes by assholes that won't let you merge. There's many situations where you simply can't merge right early.

The 101 up the peninsula is a terrible freeway and its poor design and signage causes problems for even courteous and attentive drivers. It was interesting to drive on during the early days of the pandemic when traffic was significantly reduced. It became painfully apparent the design of the 101's exits were made for those super low traffic levels and woefully inadequate with today's levels.

I hit a dresser in that lane doing about 90 mph, my buddy said it turned into dust.

Meanwhile, half the HOV-lane drivers around here are single occupant, and I never see the CHP bat an eye.

The small amount of discomfort you experience from people driving too slowly is nothing compared to the impacts of people trying to drive as fast as possible. Turns out, that traffic paradoxically moves FASTER (in the aggregate) when you reduce speed limits.

https://theconversation.com/increasing-the-speed-limit-wont-...

https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/413955/

https://3659de2n61p72dta253nvqzd-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-...

No, you do not need to pass slower traffic. Turn your radar cruise control on, enjoy your tunes, and learn to delay gratification.

The root cause is speed differential between traffic elements or groups thereof. You can either bring the upper bound down with draconian enforcement or you can bring the lower bound up, mostly by raising the statutory speed limit. The latter is far more popular.

Acceleration differential is also a cause, which cannot be fixed.

No radar cruise control, it’s a carburetor, personally I don’t like driving behind people, their not paying attention to the road conditions.

What really bugs me right now is that the lanes are not hard-divided or at least 4-stripe divided from the regular lanes like they are in Southern CA.

So what people are doing is switching lanes without fear of penalty in the stretches between the monitoring gantries, and either causing inconvenience or outright danger to others driving responsibly.

Hopefully this will be fixed.

> What really bugs me right now is that the lanes are not hard-divided or at least 4-stripe divided from the regular lanes like they are in Southern CA.

I actually think this is fine, but the signage is _awful_. In a bit of inverse awfulness, look at the 10 in the SGV. They converted a bus lane to an HOV decades (and now Fastrak). It's almost worthless unless your goal is to get from El Monte to downtown. There are virtually no exits/entrances. Also, I resent the effort spent on it because none of its glaring problems have ever been dealt with and my understanding is that it was basically converted to a toll road to comply with some federal requirement to lower travel times. So, the local agencies were able to claim they saved 2 minutes on the commute to downtown and got to keep the federal funding. Way to target the metric there.

The difference between how NorCal and SoCal does it is really bizarre. NorCal also has a lot of timed carpool lanes which are slowly being converted to these inane Lexus lanes. The timed carpool lanes felt like they were never a good idea because it seemed to generally cause confusion and instead increased congestion as people weren't sure whether they could use them. Also, I remain infuriated that the on-ramps in NorCal have carpool lanes enforced 24/7 instead of like they are in SoCal--only when the meter is actually on.

It's not negligent to drive below the speed limit

It's negligent to be an outlier, high or low, compared to other traffic speeds.

I'll cut vehicles in poor states of repair or laden commercial vehicles some slack when it comes to things like merges and hill climbs.

It is if you don't make a proper lane selection.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com