[VillagerNut]

Originally Posted by ColdNoMore

Not true.

You don't 'have to' make a u-turn...where there is no dedicated left hand turn lane.

It just means you might have to drive an extra 15-30 seconds...until you get to a dedicated left hand turn lane.

I realize some people may find this to be an unacceptable inconvenience...but hey.

No idea what you were talking about in your message. They are making a very legal left turn but it is to do a U-turn to get going the opposite direction from where they pulled out because of the limited access to 466. So they are making a legal U turn from a legal left turn lane. An example would be from Village of la Zamora gate! Their next choice for a stoplight would be all the way down to Morris at 466. But if everybody is driving in the left lane they have no chance of doing the U-turn to head eastbound on 466!

[ColdNoMore]

Originally Posted by VillagerNut

No idea what you were talking about in your message. They are making a very legal left turn but it is to do a U-turn to get going the opposite direction from where they pulled out because of the limited access to 466. So they are making a legal U turn from a legal left turn lane. An example would be from Village of la Zamora gate! Their next choice for a stoplight would be all the way down to Morris at 466. But if everybody is driving in the left lane they have no chance of doing the U-turn to head eastbound on 466!

If there is already a dedicated left hand turn lane, why would that impede someone driving in the left hand through lane?

There is no way the 'stay in right lane unless passing,' law is to help people stopped in the left hand through lane to make a left hand turn (or u-turn).

[golfing eagles]

[QUOTE=ColdNoMore;1339769]If there is already a dedicated left hand turn lane, why would that impede someone driving in the left hand through lane?


I agree, cold. But the poster was somewhat unclear. I think his point is that a driver might be crawling and obstructing traffic in the left lane due to an utter lack of driving skills having moved there 3 million miles prior in preparation for a left or U turn. This makes sense since the same utter lack of driving skills probably prevents him from merging to the left at an appropriate time in anything but an empty highway,

[Barefoot]

Originally Posted by Topspinmo

ONLY IF THEY ARE IMPEDING TRAFFIC! IF no one is behind you it's NOT against the LAW to be in the left lane. but, It is against the LAW to block or impede traffic in left lanes.

Statutes & Constitution
:View Statutes

The big IF word in Para. (3)

3) On a road, street, or highway having two or more lanes allowing movement in the same direction, a driver may not continue to operate a motor vehicle in the furthermost left-hand lane if the driver knows or reasonably should know that he or she is being overtaken in that lane from the rear by a motor vehicle traveling at a higher rate of speed. This subsection does not apply to drivers operating a vehicle that is overtaking another vehicle proceeding in the same direction, or is preparing for a left turn at an intersection.

93 posts to debate this topic? As posted by Topspinmo, it appears the rules of the road are clear.

[Bmacs]

Originally Posted by VApeople

When we drive along Morse Road and plan to turn left at the next roundabout, we know we have to be in the left lane when we enter the roundabout. Therefore, I usually get into the left lane as soon we pass the previous roundabout and I drive 35 mph.

Well, it's illegal and an expensive ticket!

[dave from deland]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

This issue will never be solved. Although the law requires slower drivers to move to the right, it also requires all drivers to drive within the speed limit. So, if a driver is moving at 45 mph in a 45 mph zone, he feels that no one should be able pass without breaking the law, and he is correct on that point. So, what difference does it make which lane he is in? In a court of law, I don't see how the law could be enforced against a driver who is driving at the speed limit.

You are correct. I wish more people would recognize that the speed limit is the same in both lanes. If you are driving the speed limit in the left lane, you don't have to move over to let another car exceeding the speed limit pass.

[roob1]

Originally Posted by dave from deland

If you are driving the speed limit in the left lane, you don't have to move over to let another car exceeding the speed limit pass.

And this false belief and resultant behavior is probably why this thread was started!

[Barefoot]

Originally Posted by dave from deland

If you are driving the speed limit in the left lane, you don't have to move over to let another car exceeding the speed limit pass.

Originally Posted by Topspinmo

Statutes & Constitution
:View Statutes

On a road, street, or highway having two or more lanes allowing movement in the same direction, a driver may not continue to operate a motor vehicle in the furthermost left-hand lane if the driver knows or reasonably should know that he or she is being overtaken in that lane from the rear by a motor vehicle traveling at a higher rate of speed.

After almost 100 posts, people still cannot agree. My money is on Topspinmo. More popcorn please.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by dave from deland

You are correct. I wish more people would recognize that the speed limit is the same in both lanes. If you are driving the speed limit in the left lane, you don't have to move over to let another car exceeding the speed limit pass.

YES YOU DO!!!!!! Read the law. And that's why, Barefoot, there are 90+ posts

[Wandatime]

I'll throw my two cents in . . .

This is why you shouldn’t drive slow in the left lane – District Speed

[Tomterrif]

Wish this were enforced on the interstate, only state I ever saw doing it was Pa. I think the slow drivers in the left lane are both dangerous to others and extremely rude

[Polar Bear]

Originally Posted by dave from deland

...If you are driving the speed limit in the left lane, you don't have to move over to let another car exceeding the speed limit pass.

Rationalize all you want. But read the law and you'll see you are 100% wrong.

[Polar Bear]

Originally Posted by Barefoot

After almost 100 posts, people still cannot agree...

Agreement implies it's up for debate, Barefoot. The facts are not. The law is clear.

If people disagree with the law or are unaware of the law, it's still the law.

[dbussone]

Originally Posted by Polar Bear

Agreement implies it's up for debate, Barefoot. The facts are not. The law is clear.

If people disagree with the law or are unaware of the law, it's still the law.

Bare, I really do agree with Bear on this issue.

Happy New Year to you both.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[Barefoot]

Originally Posted by Polar Bear

Agreement implies it's up for debate, Barefoot. The facts are not. The law is clear. If people disagree with the law or are unaware of the law, it's still the law.

You are right, it's the law. I was trying to be gentle and not tell D in D that he is wrong.
Lots of debate and disagreement, but the law is clear on this one.