Pulled Over by DPS

[PappaGun]

...Here is the transportation code. It clearly states you are to drive on the right side of the road UNLESS passing another vehicle or other reason. Period.

This is the way I have always understood it.

But I always have to chuckle.

Can you imagine rush hour in Dallas when everyone drives in the right lane, or maybe right two lanes.

Why do we even have 4 lanes any way?

Seems like if the law was enforced as written, we could save a lot freeway money and down size our roads.

[G26ster]

Once again:

§ 545.051. DRIVING ON RIGHT SIDE OF ROADWAY.
(a) An operator on a roadway of sufficient width shall drive on the right
half of the roadway, unless:

(3) the operator is on a roadway divided into three
marked lanes for traffic;

So it is perfectly legal to drive in the left lane on any Texas freeway with 3 or more lanes.

[cbr600]

deleted

[G26ster]

So it is perfectly legal to drive in the left lane on any Texas freeway with 3 or more lanes.

Not so quick!

Section (a) talks about driving "on the right half of the roadway" where there's traffic allowed in both directions, like many residential streets. (That's why there's the (a)(4) exception for one-way streets.)

I am talking about roads where traffic is allowed in both directions. Not residential streets, but freeways. I responded to the statement, "Here is the transportation code. It clearly states you are to drive on the right side of the road UNLESS passing another vehicle or other reason. Period." Well, one of the other reasons is driving on a freeway with 3 lanes in one direction. Wasn't driving in the left lane of a freeway part of the conversation?

[Keith B]

OK, I said I wasn't discussing this any more, and I am not, BUT wanted to post some clarifying information. One is directly from the DPS and I will quote the verbiage from here http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/director_s ... ap0898.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. This law passed in 1997 was to clarify the signs and make it a passing only vs. slower traffic sign, as well as make it clearer about the left lane law. Basically, the far left lane is to be left open on any multi-lane highway (i.e. 3+ lanes you are not to drive in the far left one unless passing.)

Here are a couple of articles on the law

http://www.scottlewisonline.com/archive/cars199810.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://lubbockonline.com/stories/070398/AST-1248.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

New law requires "left lane for passing" signs

A law passed during the last legislative session requires that the Texas Department of Transportation put up signs that say "Left Lane for Passing Only" whenever the department needs to replace signs that say "Slower Traffic Keep Right."

The legislation in effect requires slower traffic to travel in a lane other than the left lane. Signs can be placed only on highways with more than one lane traveling in the same direction.

Law enforcement agencies have long had the ability to write citations for slower vehicles failing to keep to the right or for impeding traffic. The new law does not affect that.

The new signs already have been posted in some parts of the state, and TxDOT held a news conference in San Antonio in late June to unveil the new signs.

The new signs don't give motorists "a license to speed." Motorists still must obey all traffic laws, including speed laws.

And, here is a website from a guy that is very knowledgeable on Texas highway laws and rules. See his paragraph on the left lane laws at http://texashighwayman.com/laws.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; The section on the law is about 6th from the bottom of the page.

[Dagnabitblah]

Law enforcement agencies have long had the ability to write citations for slower vehicles failing to keep to the right or for impeding traffic. The new law does not affect that.

And that is how my brother got busted. No posted signs, but he was not moving in the left lane (3 lanes both directions) as fast as traffic was trying to go so he got pulled over. Even if it's not a law (which it is) the friendly and Texan thing to do anyway is to just move over so the speeder can pass on the left and not make the more dangerous move on the right. Making them do that is setting him or her up to actually break the law even more by pushing them to pass on the right - 'cause you know they'll do it and cut off others in the process most likely.

I wonder how many more pages this will go! There is obviously different interpretations of the same few sentences.

[terryg]

I guess nothing is served by continuing if my point's not clear now it never will be

Hi speedsix. I think you are right that both sides here are not going to budge. But, I think a key here is that both sides (you and Keith B and Excaliber) are all attempting to interpret the law as it is written. By writing the following, you are implying that they are intentionally reading it incorrectly in order to support their position:

I'm not torqued but I'm not convinced, either, and I am only using the law to support my view what it SAYS not what I want it to say

I don't know myself - that's why lawyers bug me almost as much as politicians - nothing is ever clear or concrete. (No offense intended to Mr. Cotton or other of that profession ) If they wanted 'normal' to reference the posted speed limit - why couldn't they simply add those three words to the code "posted speed limit"? On the other hand, why should this law supersede the speed limit statutes? I can see it both ways and am unconvinced by both arguments - at least from a legal perspective. But then, I am a legal ID10T.

But I don't think it is correct that either are intentionally misreading the statute. They are both attempting to do exactly what you have been doing - reading the law and attempting to figure out exactly how it applies in this instance.

Sincerely,

t

[Keith B]

I guess nothing is served by continuing if my point's not clear now it never will be

Hi speedsix. I think you are right that both sides here are not going to budge. But, I think a key here is that both sides (you and Keith B and Excaliber) are all attempting to interpret the law as it is written. By writing the following, you are implying that they are intentionally reading it incorrectly in order to support their position:

I'm not torqued but I'm not convinced, either, and I am only using the law to support my view what it SAYS not what I want it to say

I don't know myself - that's why lawyers bug me almost as much as politicians - nothing is ever clear on concrete. (No offense intended to Mr. Cotton or other of that profession ) If they wanted 'normal' to reference the posted speed limit - why couldn't they simply add those three words to the code "posted speed limit"? On the other hand, why should this law supersede the speed limit statutes? I can see it both ways and am unconvinced by both arguments - at least from a legal perspective. But then, I am a legal ID10T.

But I don't think it is correct that either are intentionally misreading the statute. They are both attempting to do exactly what you have been doing - reading the law and attempting to figure out exactly how it applies in this instance.

Sincerely,

t

I refer you to the above links and posts to see that several of us here have NOT misinterpreted the law. As it is you are required to move to the right (out of the furthermost left lane) and not impede traffic, period. Speeding is another issue, that is not dealt with in the that law. It is pretty well spelled out in the quote above from the DPS website.

[speedsix]

...I'm doing research...I plan to post ONE more post on this...but not till later this evening...

[terryg]

I refer you to the above links and posts to see that several of us here have NOT misinterpreted the law. As it is you are required to move to the right (out of the furthermost left lane) and not impede traffic, period. Speeding is another issue, that is not dealt with in the that law. It is pretty well spelled out in the quote above from the DPS website.

Hi Keith,

I am sorry, I don't think I expressed myself well. I was not saying who might be right or wrong here. Only that nobody was intentionally misinterpreting or misrepresenting the law. It appears to me that all parties (you, speedsix, Excaliber) are doing their best to apply the statutes to this situation - no matter who is correct or not.

[Keith B]

I refer you to the above links and posts to see that several of us here have NOT misinterpreted the law. As it is you are required to move to the right (out of the furthermost left lane) and not impede traffic, period. Speeding is another issue, that is not dealt with in the that law. It is pretty well spelled out in the quote above from the DPS website.

Hi Keith,

I am sorry, I don't think I expressed myself well. I was not saying who might be right or wrong here. Only that nobody was intentionally misinterpreting or misrepresenting the law. It appears to me that all parties (you, speedsix, Excaliber) are doing their best to apply the statutes to this situation - no matter who is correct or not.

Understand. Just trying to make sure that the law as it stands is really passed along to the members. When you have active/former LEO's disagreeing, it makes it confusing to the members on who they should listen too. Just need to make sure we get it clear as to the right info.

[gigag04]

I refer you to the above links and posts to see that several of us here have NOT misinterpreted the law. As it is you are required to move to the right (out of the furthermost left lane) and not impede traffic, period. Speeding is another issue, that is not dealt with in the that law. It is pretty well spelled out in the quote above from the DPS website.

Hi Keith,

I am sorry, I don't think I expressed myself well. I was not saying who might be right or wrong here. Only that nobody was intentionally misinterpreting or misrepresenting the law. It appears to me that all parties (you, speedsix, Excaliber) are doing their best to apply the statutes to this situation - no matter who is correct or not.

Understand. Just trying to make sure that the law as it stands is really passed along to the members. When you have active/former LEO's disagreeing, it makes it confusing to the members on who they should listen too. Just need to make sure we get it clear as to the right info.

FWIW

[srothstein]

If they wanted 'normal' to reference the posted speed limit - why couldn't they simply add those three words to the code "posted speed limit"? On the other hand, why should this law supersede the speed limit statutes?

Well, I have been trying hard not to bring this up again, but after your post, I just could not resist any further. It opens a whole different can of worms to talk about though, so maybe it will get us off the topic of the left lane, anyway.

The reason the signs and law do not refer to the speed limit is because we do not have a real speed limit in Texas. Remember that the law says that speeding is going faster that what is reasonable and prudent for conditions. Exceeding the posted speed limit is only a prima facie case, and it is not a crime. One way to eat a speeding ticket is to accept the speed you were going and then argue that it was both reasonable and prudent. And of course, the way to show reasonable is to show what speed the average person was going - the flow of traffic.

For example, we all know of highways around our area where everyone speeds. If you tried to do the actual speed limit, you would quickly get run over. In cases like that, if someone picked you out of the crowd for a speeding ticket, and you could prove the flow of traffic was what you were doing, you should win (though it might take an appellate ruling, which is very expensive for just a speeding ticket).

And that is why the guy in the left lane might not be breaking the law by going faster than the posted speed limit. If his conditions are different from yours (training, equipment, circumstances, etc.), the speed he is doing might very well be reasonable and prudent. And that is why you should move over and let him by, besides being the already posted friendly, Texan thing to do.

[Oldgringo]

srothstein wrote:

...we do not have a real speed limit in Texas...

Well, one way to lower Texas' budget shortfall would be the elimination of those silly black on white signs all around the state that proclaim a non-existent speed limit. Another cost saving measure would be to eliminate the purchase and implementation of those radar thinghys employed by LEO's around the state to enforce the bogus speed limit restrictions.

Surely, I missed something. Has anyone seen my marbles? I must have misplaced them.

[gigag04]

normal is not what several choose to do...normal is what is expected...within norms...guidelines...laws...

...I don't see any point in continuing to argue the same things...if anyone finds a specific Texas law that I need to be aware of...I'd like to see it...

This is the entire text of TC 545.051:

Code: Select all

Sec. 545.051.  DRIVING ON RIGHT SIDE OF ROADWAY.  
(a)  An operator on a roadway of sufficient width shall drive on the right half of the roadway, unless:
      (1)  the operator is passing another vehicle;
      (2)  an obstruction necessitates moving the vehicle left of the center of the roadway and the operator yields the right-of-way to a vehicle that:
               (A)  is moving in the proper direction on the unobstructed portion of the roadway;  and
               (B)  is an immediate hazard;
               (3)  the operator is on a roadway divided into three marked lanes for traffic;  or
               (4)  the operator is on a roadway restricted to one-way traffic.
[**********]
(b)  An operator of a vehicle on a roadway moving more slowly than the normal speed of other vehicles at the time and place under the existing conditions shall drive in the right-hand lane available for vehicles, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, unless the operator is:
     (1)  passing another vehicle;  or
     (2)  preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
[*******]
(c)  An operator on a roadway having four or more lanes for moving vehicles and providing for two-way movement of vehicles may not drive left of the center line of the roadway except:
     (1)  as authorized by an official traffic-control device designating a specified lane to the left side of the center of the roadway for use by a vehicle not otherwise permitted to use the lane;
     (2)  under the conditions described by Subsection (a)(2);  or
     (3)  in crossing the center line to make a left turn into or out of an alley, private road, or driveway.

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

A few things. First, I formated the snippet of the code to highlight the relevant section (same way Mr. Rothstein quoted it). I can see speedsix's point that normal should mean under the prima facie (posted) speed limit...however...the law doesn't say that. I would like for it to say that but it doesn't. The text only refers to "Normal" and doesn't specify beyond that. I'm surprised it is worded that way, but it is what we have to work with. In my humble opinion - I think both sides of this argument would be wrong if this made it to court. Anyone going 65mph in the left lane of a 70mph zoned roadway would not be convicted under this statute, in my opinion. I believe the courts would find that within a 5% margin of the posted speed would be considered normal. Furthermore, those that feel it would be a violation, and non-speeding traffic should vacate the left most lane would also be incorrect. The statute mandates that traffic moving "slower than normal" (which will be interpreted and applied by the court) is forced to travel ONLY in the right most lane available for travel. I think the legislative intent in this text was aimed at larger cargo carrying vehicles (the windmill blade haulers come to mind), and other slow moving traffic.

At the end of the day, intentionally impeding the flow of traffic because you disagree with their chosen speeds is not safe. It merely serves to compound the increased risk of an accident due to their higher speeds. The adage "Slower Traffic Keep Right" is taught from NHTSA on down through driver's ed classes nationwide, and is posted on highways. We can nitpick this statute to death to find some legal standing which we might perch a far reaching opinion, but at the end of the day, safety is paramount. I get annoyed at the driving of others as much as anyone (if not more due to taking accident reports), but for me to combat that with my own poor driving behaviors is not a solution.

Lastly - lots of people are complaining about revenue from traffic enforcement. Tickets, by nature, are class C infractions punishable by fine only. So...of course this means money will be flowing into government coffers (and quickly back out) from fine payments. However, if you take that aspect out of traffic enforcement (and LE as a whole), then what are you left with?

I know people say that speeding isn't unsafe, and they drive fine at 100mph. Maybe. But the rest of the public cannot so the legislation is set a common (or "reasonable") limit. Think of it like a bell curve of public driving ability. All that to say, you can spare the pity party for offcers performing the role ofbeing a uniformed tax collector. If you don't like the realities of speeding tickets - don't speed. Numerous studies from NHSTA, DOT, and others have shown a correlation between traffic enforcement and the reduction of accidents.