That works too 
But I was actually thinking of:
-
Going to south Shore Plaza from Route 3 north
-
Getting onto 93 from Storrow, then getting off exit 28
-
A few places in Pittsburgh with too many mountains and rivers requiring tunnels and bridges
I’m not trying to pick fights, I’m genuinely curious where this “rule” comes from. I was always taught the opposite: that if someone is signalling, you have an obligation to let them in. And I’ve seen both put forward as the “rule” in this thread (including by me). Because I’m that kind of nerd, I looked at the Texas Rules of the Road. Unsurprisingly, there is nothing that deals explicitly with changing lanes in gridlocked traffic. The closest I found is this section on passing and being passed:
Sec. 545.053. PASSING TO THE LEFT; RETURN; BEING PASSED. (a) An operator passing another vehicle:
(1) shall pass to the left of the other vehicle at a safe distance; and
(2) may not move back to the right side of the roadway until safely clear of the passed vehicle.
(b) An operator being passed by another vehicle:
(1) shall, on audible signal, move or remain to the right in favor of the passing vehicle; and
(2) may not accelerate until completely passed by the passing vehicle.
(b)(2) seems pretty clear that, at least when you’re being passed, you DO have an obligation to make room for the person to get back in the lane. I’m not sure I’d call creeping past someone in gridlock as “passing”, but that’s the closet thing I found.
I just think it’s interesting that changing lanes is such a common thing and yet there’s clearly so much disagreement on who has what obligations.
1 Like
I feel like this is the crux of the disagreement. Everyone agrees that in places where there’s no choice but to zipper, people need to let people in, but not everyone agrees what to do when there’s “a line” (cars backed up trying to exit, say) and someone tries to “skip and cut the line” (passing the backed up cars and trying to merge in late).
And I think the biggest gripe that the people already in the lane have is that they were “waiting their turn” and someone else is “cutting in line.” It’s a fairness thing.
The “fairness thing” gets people’s blood boiling and leads to road rage, and cars spitefully pushing their nose up against the car in front of them to not leave even an inch of space. I think, whether or not people are right about “fairness,” the results of their actions then lead to unsafe conditions, and at that point you’ve lost. The highway is a damn dangerous place, we shouldn’t make it more dangerous.
I think we can also imagine valid reasons why the “asshole” passers may be merging late. The backed-up lane may be backed up beyond the entrance that the other driver came in on. It’s also not always predictable when the lane suddenly changes from “I need to start merging, just waiting for a safer gap” to “oh shit, now the cars are crawling and there are no more gaps.”
I hate people merging in late after I’ve been stuck for nearly ten minutes in an exit lane, but I still think they should be let in.
2 Likes
Anyone know of the outcome of this sillyness?
I’ve been driving since 1979, and I was never told that I had a legal or moral obligation. I think I was taught to be a courteous driver and never to insist on the right away.
The signal, then immediately pull over is a relatively newer phenomenon due to gridlock traffic. I can get on board with that. It’s not in my nature to speed up and be an ass.
However, just this morning after I let someone lane change in front of me, another car came up from behind in the lane on my right. I saw them turn on their blinker just before they pulled alongside, both of us driving 10-15 mph. I guess the driver thought that I should immediately stop because they began moving over into my exact spot. They were willing to ram my car on the side and would have had I not slammed my brakes. That person saw me; no blind spot was involved.
Some people are impatient assholes.
2 Likes
It doesn’t ever work that way in reality. In situations where the road can support full-speed traffic, most often it’s easy to merge in and you don’t have to wait till the last second. When it’s bumper-to-bumper people zipper merge. In any case it’s the person who’s doing something OTHER than going straight or keeping to their lane that has to make sure it’s safe to do so.
1 Like
Here’s the linke: CHAPTER 545. OPERATION AND MOVEMENT OF VEHICLES :: Texas Transportation Code :: 2005 Texas Code :: Texas Code :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia
Here’s the copypasta:
§ 545.060. DRIVING ON ROADWAY LANED FOR TRAFFIC. (a) An
operator on a roadway divided into two or more clearly marked lanes
for traffic:
(1) shall drive as nearly as practical entirely within
a single lane; and
(2) may not move from the lane unless that movement can
be made safely.
Here we see that you’re expected to stay in your lane, and that you’re obligated to make sure you can change lanes safely if you must.
And further down we see:
§ 545.061. DRIVING ON MULTIPLE-LANE ROADWAY. On a
roadway divided into three or more lanes and providing for one-way
movement of traffic, an operator entering a lane of traffic from a
lane to the right shall yield the right-of-way to a vehicle entering
the same lane of traffic from a lane to the left.
Essentially saying that merging traffic must yield right-of-way.
The sections you included refer only to one-lane-in-each-direction roads where you’d have to enter the oncoming lane to pass. The section on multi-lane highways is further down.
2 Likes
I think you’re misinterpreting 545.061. To me that seems to say if you have someone in the left lane trying to move to the centre lane at the same time someone from the right lane is also trying to move to the middle lane, the driver from the left lane has priority.
2 Likes
What it 100% Doesn’t say is “drivers merging into the left lane from the right lane have the right of way.”
1 Like
I think you’re right that 545.060 is the section to look at here. Clearly the lane change couldn’t be made safely because if it could, we wouldn’t have people swinging machetes. So I guess the moral is be nice to other drivers because you rely on them to let you change lanes.
I don’t think 545.061 applies here, but that’s irrelevant.
We don’t know that from the video. Before it started, either the HHR tried to force his way into the lane, clearly unsafe then. Alternatively, the WRX didn’t like the HHR moving into the following space in front of them and accelerated as the move started to eliminate the space, fault of the WRX.
Either way, the machete wielding is clearly the fault of the wielder, no matter how they got there. 
Dashcam footage from the 30 seconds before this video would explain a lot.
Definitely. You rely on them for everything. It’s practically a miracle any of us get anywhere without being in an accident everytime we’re on the road.
1 Like
My guiding philosophy of safe driving is that traffic is random and violent, like Brownian motion. Thus, accidents are a statistical risk associated with exposure time.
The safest way to drive is to get from origin to destination as quickly as possible, reducing statistical exposure risk.
AKA, faster is better!
1 Like
Washington State RCW Chapter 46.61 “Rules of the Road” Section 140, part (1):
“A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from such lane until the driver has first ascertained that such movement can be made with safety.”
1 Like
I confess, I always enjoy to see my misanthropy reinforced. I mean, I shouldn’t be misanthropic – I try not to – but biases reinforced is always a great feeling. (I supposed that’s the feeling people get watching Fox or attending one of Unhinged Donnie’s rallies?)
As for the Chevy driver: When one drives an embarrassing POS like his vehicle, one should never do anything to attract attention to oneself.
You aren’t kidding…30 years ago when applying for a DL in Florida I failed the test for “being too courteous”.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
