
California Considering Lanes with No Speed Limit - prostoalex
https://www.motortrend.com/news/calinornia-unlimited-highway-lanes/
======
watsocd
I have always lived in the US and Canada but was on a driving vacation in
Germany in the past year. I did hours of Autobahn driving at 160kMh/100MPH.
The drivers are MUCH more courteous in Germany. ALL Trucks are in the right
most lane as are cars pulling ANYTHING. That alone will never fly here.

This means that the only vehicles in the two left lanes are cars and some
small trucks. Even then most vehicles stayed well away from the far left lane.
Mostly because the cars were not capable of courteously driving in the left
lane.

What this all means is that I saw no acts of aggression on the roads that are
very common on US freeways. Acts of aggression can include driving at the
speed limit or less in the left lane because "I can and it's not against the
law".

Speeding cars approaching other cars quickly, tailgating, and flashing
headlights when they are maybe already exceeding the speed limit and have not
had a chance to move over yet.

In summary, it was much more comfortable driving in Germany at 100MPH than
driving on US roads at much lower speeds.

~~~
Sohcahtoa82
> Acts of aggression can include driving at the speed limit or less in the
> left lane because "I can and it's not against the law".

What's especially shitty about this is that in many states, it actually _is_
against the law, but since it's so poorly enforced, people either don't know
or don't care.

~~~
SketchySeaBeast
I'm not a left lane parker, but isn't driving above the speed limit also
against the law?

~~~
Spartan-S63
Yes. In some (most?) states, the leftmost lane on a motorway above 65MPH is
supposed to be used for passing only.

What makes highways dangerous are large speed gradients and this is an issue
caused by drivers both on the high end and the low end of speed. Hence why
most highways have a minimum advertised speed. The issue is that no one
respects the speed limits anymore which often expands the gradient and makes
the highway less safe. Left lane or not, you shouldn’t exceed the speed limit.

------
bdamm
> According to the bill, money for construction of two new lanes on each side
> of I-5 and CA-99 would be drawn from California's Greenhouse Gas Reduction
> Fund.

Wait, what?

> The bill is being pitched as a way to cut idling in traffic and therefore
> reduce greenhouse gases

This looks like next level reality distortion field to me. Increasing speed
limits cannot possibly decrease greenhouse gases, nor can adding lanes (which
increases capacity and therefore use.) The most optimal speed for reducing
greenhouse gasses appears to be 40-60mph, so any discussion of speeds outside
that range is therefore not about lowest GHG emissions.

Having high-speed lanes seems OK to me, but drawing that effort out of funds
tagged for GHG-reduction seems like a court challenge waiting to happen, and
is morally unacceptable anyhow.

~~~
soheil
If you're getting when you're going faster there is less congestion on the
road therefore less pollution form other cars, there are other advantages too
but please do not make this a moral argument.

~~~
Spartan-S63
Actually, there’s less congestion on the road if you follow at a safe distance
from the car in front of you. Congestion is caused by following too closely
and braking too hard. If everyone followed at the minimum safe distances, your
average speed would likely be faster than it would be in stop-and-go
congestion.

~~~
jdmichal
Congestion can also be caused by too little free capacity to even maintain
that distance... Which is what typically happens where I live. There's a
bridge with four lanes. Two of the lanes split off to an exit which includes
another highway junction. Two other lanes continue, and are joined by a third
lane from the other highway. This turns almost the entire bridge into a
parking lot every afternoon. Even on the weekend, this interchange will
typically be backed up.

[https://www.google.com/maps/@27.9445375,-82.5425725,1869m/da...](https://www.google.com/maps/@27.9445375,-82.5425725,1869m/data=!3m1!1e3)

------
jacobolus
Not “considering” in any serious way. Proposed by one wealthy GOP State
Senator from an area full of wealthy anti-tax hard liners who like to speed
around unsafely in their sports cars, and don’t like the concept of a
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. Here’s the district:
[https://calwatchdog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/37th-
Dist...](https://calwatchdog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/37th-District.jpg)

This bill is never going anywhere. The GOP is now 10/40 seats in the CA State
Senate (2 seats vacant), and 19/80 in the CA State Assembly.

~~~
ddoolin
Yep. I live in said district and this could not be any more true. I don't have
just one or two anecdotes, but hundreds and I've only lived here for a
relatively short amount of time. I drive a red Model S and people attempt to
race all the time (once out of every few times I go out, or more often), and
even then they drive super aggressively and fast. On YouTube, many of the high
speed driving videos are filmed here, too.

I'm not going to say this should have any bearing on the merits bill at hand,
but your characterization is absolutely correct.

~~~
dsl
> I drive a red Model S and people attempt to race all the time

I saw a documentary about this once called 'Fast and Furious'. You just need
to find the fastest guys and beat them.

------
maxxxxx
Funny that at the same time Germany is considering speed limits. American cars
also need better tires to go faster, not just all-season tires.

------
koboll
>local reports indicate the lanes would run from Stockton to Bakersfield, a
distance of approximately 240 miles via I-5 or 230 miles via CA-99.

I've driven these probably 30 times each. The standard minimum speed there in
the daytime is already 80-90 mph in the fast lane.

Getting stuck behind some asshole who actually goes the speed limit in the
fast lane isn't just annoying (it can add an hour to an SF => LA trip), it's
also dangerous. It encourages people to pass by dodging and weaving through
the line of much slower semi trucks in the slow lane. Also, CHP likes to hide
under overpasses to hand out tickets, so people tend to slow down before them
and then speed up again after them.

All these lane changes and speed changes are much, much likelier to cause
accidents than high speed is. The road would be a lot safer if people in the
fast lane were encouraged to all drive at the same high speed. This bill is a
fantastic idea.

~~~
jacobolus
Cars driving slowly in the left lane is occasionally annoying, but in my
experience the much more common problem with the 5 is that with 2 lanes and
lots of semi trucks, there are frequently trucks passing trucks, and a lot of
entitled car drivers will see the left lane moving slowly and try to pass on
the right.... which of course they can’t actually do because there was a truck
passing a truck, so you get lots of unsafe leapfrogging.

------
maerF0x0

       According to the bill, money for construction of two new 
       lanes on each side of I-5 and CA-99 would be  
       drawn from California's Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.
       Moorlach doesn't give an estimated cost for the project,
       but says the state already owns the right of way necessary 
       for the lanes. The bill is being pitched as a way to cut 
       idling in traffic and therefore reduce greenhouse gases,
    

The irony of making a lane unlimited speed when 1) Driving over certain speeds
(60?) significantly increases fuel consumption and 2) It's pretty constly,
environmentally speaking, to replace cars and people when they inevitably
crash at 100MPH

~~~
maxxxxx
" when they inevitably crash at 100MPH"

Why would they crash? 100 is not difficult to do.

~~~
maerF0x0
this was more to emphasize that accidents do happen and that at 100MPH the
magnitude of the crash has increased (its more catastrophic)

------
SamReidHughes
That makes a lot of sense for I-5. It's dead straight, and since trucks pass
each other, the passing lane is often really slow. A third lane would get
bogged down behind slowpokes trying to park their way past the trucks at a
comfortable 5 over, when 90 is a perfectly reasonable minimum speed, so having
this law might mitigate that.

~~~
maerF0x0
This is also an argument against No speed limit as speed differential is
really the more dangerous aspect. It's not safe to drive 100MPH along side
semis doing 65MPH .

~~~
wolrah
It is very safe as long as people have lane discipline. Which is to say slow
drivers keep the fuck to the right.

See Germany for examples.

Unfortunately here in America a lot of slow shitheads have an entitlement
complex and think that anyone who wants to go faster than them is evil.

------
Gene5ive
The autobahn is safer because the drivers have better training. If we are not
willing to train drivers just as well or better then we might want to stick
with the train, which the Germans also have. While we're at it we can ask them
how they managed to actually follow through and finish building it.

~~~
ppseafield
It's also safer because the grade and turns are carefully crafted, the surface
is maintained very well, and wildlife crossing is taken into consideration.
You can't really say that of most US Highways.

~~~
jjtheblunt
How do they prevent poor animals from entering the roadways?

~~~
ppseafield
Fences and land bridges apparently. Seems like it doesn't get them all, but
keeps the bigger ones out most of the time.

[https://www.quora.com/Are-collisions-with-animals-a-major-
pr...](https://www.quora.com/Are-collisions-with-animals-a-major-problem-on-
the-German-Autobahn)

I've never seen anything even remotely like that on a US highway, and I've
driven around the US a lot.

------
dsl
Per California law the speed limit is supposed to be set at the 85th
percentile of speed as measured by a traffic engineering study (operating
speed), not the rate of travel the roadway was designed for (design speed).

The idea behind the law is that the majority of people are lawful, and that we
are in fact "voting" for the right speed to be set by traveling at that rate.

Rather than creating lanes with no speed limit, we just need to force Caltrans
and local municipalities to enforce this standard.

~~~
hanging
And to legally use radar enforcement, there has to be a current survey
affirming the limit.

------
unethical_ban
The practical speed limit is 100 MPH, and in Texas, we have 75-85 MPH in a lot
of sparse areas. And if it's a clear day, that 75 MPH is effectively 85.

So from a safety perspective, there is nothing wrong here.

The logic of pulling from a greenhouse emission reduction fund is bonkers.

------
dmode
This will never happen because 1. There is no appetite for increasing speed
limits due to increase in emissions and increase in enforcement costs 2.
Drivers here are simply not disciplined enough to make a no speed limit lane
successful 3. Our roads are not engineered to support that kind of speeds,
both in terms of pavement conditions as well as merge and off ramp designs. 4.
There is no funding to build new lanes to I-5

------
gnicholas
> _According to Moorlach, the lanes would be kept separate from other lanes,
> where the speed limit would remain 65 mph._

I don't know about CA-99, but I-5 is definitely 70 MPH for stretches.

EDIT: looks like both are 70 MPH at various points:
[http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/roadinfo/70mph.htm](http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/roadinfo/70mph.htm)

------
glitchc
The obvious place to start are commuter lanes, especially those with specific
entry-exit points that are otherwise shouldered off. Remove the maximum and
introduce a 100 mph minimum.

------
SketchySeaBeast
Does "lanes" mean whole roads, or just that, single lanes on a highway
composed of many? The first option seems acceptable, but the second seems like
a nightmare.

------
skookumchuck
I'd require drivers in such lanes to have a special license and the cars pass
an inspection that they are sound enough to drive faster.

------
gyrgtyn
Cool! can't wait to be crushed by a 5000 pound tesla going 100MPH faster than
me.

------
towaway1138
What could possibly go wrong?

------
crowdpleaser
Good!

I blast between LA and SF on a regular basis with my motorcycle. The bike and
tires are good for cruising at 160 mph, but with all the trucks in an elephant
race, I'm lucky to average 80 mph.

I'd pay a small ransom in tolls to drive on a road with no trucks and no speed
limit.

~~~
asteli
I did that trip south on the 5 once. Initially I was impatient and tried
lanesplitting between semi trucks. After doing this about 4 times, rationality
kicked in and I decided that waiting the extra 30 seconds it takes for a semi
to pass another was worth it to not have "he was smooshed to death by a truck,
the idiot" in my obituary.

