Is camping in the left lane of a two-way residential street legal?

In Turkey, a red light basically means floor it 😲 A foreigner rents a car and the locals look at him like he’s lost his mind if he actually stops at a red light. People just start honking their horns at him to get out of the way.

silverfox91 said:Maybe Wonder can sing battle hymns until the end of time and claim that someone has to move out of the left lane even if they're driving at the speed limit, but that's just nonsense. He also wrote that a truck driving at the maximum allowed speed has to pull over if a line of three cars forms behind it. It seems like someone wants to drive faster than the legal limit, and now everyone else is expected to bow down to them. 😂 😂

Now you're just talking nonsense—there are vehicles that aren't legally required to follow the speed limit law... and you're going to pick a fight with them in the left lane?

I'm not talking nonsense here. If the speed limit says 80, then you go 80 until you hit the next sign, intersection, or traffic light...
The real problem is those special interest groups out to screw over honest people—basically, the politicians who are too terrified to lose a single vote.

No, no, no—look, there are certain vehicles that aren't actually required to follow the speed limit law, so for them, it’s practically non-existent. I guess my question remains: are you really going to try and pick a fight with them too?

So you actually trust diplomats, the police, and anyone else rocking those blue lights?

nimblebison8 said:So you actually trust diplomats, cops, and ambulances with their lights on?

And the government motorcades...

Man, has anyone ever seen how people drive in Milan? Like, in Italy? Total lunatics. No rules, zero respect for anything. It's wild. Honestly, just grab an Uber instead of risking a wreck.

nimblebison8 said:So you actually trust diplomats, the police, and emergency vehicles with their lights on?

I guess God doesn't care about any of that. silverfox91 just used the speed limit as an excuse to break the law, so I am trying to show him that the limit doesn't really matter in this situation. If he is driving in the left lane, even if he is going over the limit, he still needs to move over for faster traffic. Amen. End of story. Otherwise, he is just part of that group of frustrated drivers who make up their own rules.

goldenpilot2 said:No, no, no—look, there are vehicles that AREN'T REQUIRED to follow the speed limit law, so as far as they're concerned, it doesn't exist. So I'll ask you again—are you going to try and pick a fight with them too?

I’m not looking for a fight. The speed limit law doesn't apply to them, sure, but they don't get a free pass on every other rule either. Like I said before, they're just idiots driving junk cars because they're terrified of their voters and the cops when they're on some "emergency." If it's an actual emergency, fine. I'll move for an ambulance or a fire truck. But these "regular" people who think the world stops just because they're in a rush? They can go jump in a lake.

goldenpilot2 said:Thank God, I don't care—silverfox91 is just using the speed limit as an excuse for breaking the law, so I'm trying to show him that the limit doesn't mean a damn thing in his situation. If you're cruising in the left lane, even if you're UNDER the limit, you have to move over for someone faster. Period. End of story. Otherwise, he's just part of that crowd of frustrated people making up their own rules.

I just refuse to swallow that ridiculous logic. It’s on par with thinking Wonder has its own special set of rules. Where does it actually say I have to move over for someone faster? Well, obviously, because they're faster than me and they're behind me. That's the logic.

We could look at it another way. The rule says "don't obstruct other vehicles traveling behind yours." How am I obstructing people behind me? By driving the speed limit? I’d love to see what a judge would say if I argued I was driving 75 miles/h in a residential area just because some guy was tailgating me at that speed and I felt forced to move by 😂. They'd laugh in my face.

The people obstructing me are the idiots who think they own the world and that it's fine to play games on the road—like riding bicycles in the middle of the street while they smoke cigarettes, having no clue where their precious kids are. Yet, nobody asks me what happened or how it went down; they just ask why I hit them, even if those kids shouldn't have been there in the first place. Even if their parents are total morons, I'm not the one at fault here. It's all just double standards, buddy.

Look, just stay in the right lane. The left lane is strictly for passing. That means you need to move over unless you're actively overtaking someone right now.

You're heading straight for frustration...

Article 48.

2) On a road within a residential area featuring at least two marked lanes traveling in the same direction, a driver may utilize a lane that is not adjacent to the right edge of the roadway provided they don't interfere with other vehicles traveling behind them.

Does it say anywhere that this rule doesn't apply if you're driving at the "maximum speed limit"?

That’s exactly what I wrote. How am I supposedly obstructing the guy behind me if I’m driving at the exact maximum speed limit he’s allowed to drive? I’m not. Not at all.
It doesn't have to state what that maximum speed actually is. It also doesn't say I can start tossing grenades out of my window just because I have to resort to such extreme hyperbole—though we all know I shouldn't be throwing grenades.

Anyone could claim I'm getting in their way (when, realistically, I am) just because I'm turning into a driveway. Technically, the guy behind me has to brake and watch out for me and everyone behind him, wasting time. By that logic, I shouldn't even turn into a driveway until there's absolutely nobody behind me, because turning would "obstruct" them. Or turning left on a multi-lane road because I'm "blocking" people. Meanwhile, I’m following the law to the letter, using my blinker, and making the turn.

If I slam on my brakes and the person behind me rear-ends me, they are always the one at fault. Does anyone really think they can argue that the person in front was obstructing them by driving slowly (at the legal maximum), so they were justified in hitting them?

Or take the example of traffic cameras that trigger for speeding. I'm driving at the maximum legal speed, my speedometer says "keep going," but then someone flies past me way over the limit and triggers the red light for me. Who was obstructing whom there? The camera didn't "tell" me I should have been driving faster than the speed limit just because the person behind me decided to break the law. The camera said it wasn't okay and turned red because the speed limit is 30 mph, and everyone driving faster than that needs to slow down to the legal max.

Besides, everyone is sticking to the left lane because the right lanes are either under construction or full of potholes where the manhole covers are (like over on Main Street heading east), so staying in the left lane is just safer and better.

Finally, what distance would actually be considered "enough" to stay in the left lane before I need to turn left? 50m, 100m, 200m, 500m, 1 km... ??? Let's assume the maximum speed on this imaginary stretch is 50 miles/h.

goldenpilot2 said:Thank God, I couldn't care less—silverfox91 just pulled the speed limit out as an excuse to break the rules, so I'm trying to show him that the limit doesn't mean a damn thing in his situation. If you're cruising in the left lane, even if you're UNDER the limit, you need to move for someone faster. Amen, end of story. Otherwise, he’s just part of that frustrated crowd making up their own little rules.

It is a perpetual mystery to me how some people simply cannot wrap their heads around this. What kind of mindset prevents someone from moving over for faster drivers on a two-lane highway?
Maybe it’s just how I was raised; the moment I’m in the left lane, I’m constantly checking my rearview mirror to see who's coming up behind me. It’s just basic driving etiquette, as far as I'm concerned. Of course, we aren't usually talking about an ambulance or a police escort—that happens rarely, and you’d hear them coming from miles away—but if someone is moving faster, it doesn't matter if I'm doing 30 or 60, I move as soon as I can.
Why is that such a struggle for people?
Did they fail their driver's test in some small town like rural Des Moines where there's only one main road and two intersections? Are they afraid they won't be able to merge properly if they don't take a combat stance at the next three traffic lights?
Or do they just know that the speed limit isn't actually a "minimum speed" rule (except on the interstate), so they decide to troll?

I've actually come up with a name for these types: road trolls.

Hold on a second. There’s a maximum speed limit for everyone, right? The whole point is that speeding puts other drivers at risk. So how does that logic just vanish here? How are they suddenly in the right and not breaking the law? What’s the magic number where you're allowed to go faster? Is it okay to just rear-end someone just because they're driving exactly at the speed limit?

And don't forget there's a minimum speed limit too, usually half of whatever the max is.

Did silverfox91 get banned?

Anyway, back to the topic, I can't stand slowpokes, I'm not some rebel or anything, but I just can't deal with people crawling along at 50 miles/h when the speed limit is 80, you know, driving 89 or 90 and refusing to move out of the fast lane.

It’s always the same story, isn't it? You’ve got people with zero clue and even less common sense trying to force their little fairy tales on everyone else.
Honestly, all you'd have to do is crack open a book and actually read what's written there for once.

Section 150.

Aside from what’s laid out in Section 149 of this Act, and keeping the safety of everyone else on the road in mind, police vehicles—regardless of whether they’re equipped with specific gear for detecting violations or using sirens and lightswhile performing official duties, the provisions of this Act regarding the speed limit law (Sections 52 through 55)

Section 75.

(1) On any road with at least two lanes heading in the same direction, you aren't allowed to be weaving back and forth between lanes just because you feel like it. You can only switch lanes if you're actually turning left or right, or if you need to pull over or park.

So basically, according to this, they don't just have the option to stay put—they're legally forbidden from moving unless they're turning or parking. 😁

Then there's Section 48.

Section 48.
(1) Aside from what's laid out in Section 47, paragraph 2 of this law:
2) On a city street where there are at least two marked lanes going the same way, a driver is permitted to use a lane that isn't the far-right one, provided they aren't obstructing the vehicles traveling behind them.

Section 2.
79) "Obstructing traffic" is defined as any action on the road that forces another driver to change their current driving pattern in a way that goes against traffic regulations.

Look, if someone is cruising in the right lane and hits a line of cars, they might want to hop into the left lane to pick up speed, but if some slowpoke is already over there making it impossible, that doesn't count as "obstructing traffic." In that scenario, Section 48 becomes totally useless.

On the interstate or similar highways, people should have the decency to move over, but when I’m cruising at 62 miles/h and clearly exceeding the limit, it never occurs to me to get out of the way for some half-wit tailgating my bumper just because they want to go 76 miles/h. Honestly, it isn't even polite. I still remember some guy in an S-Class blinding me with his high beams on Broadway, then swerving around me on the right with this look on his face like, "back home in Germany..." as if he wouldn't face a massive fine there.
Regarding those quoting the ZSPC, there is also a rule about adjusting your driving to road conditions. If the limit is 80, you've got me doing a hundred in the left lane while the right stays clear. Either adjust, pass on the right, or slow down.

I just love it when someone on a forum decides exactly how much of an infraction is "acceptable." Oh, absolutely wonderful. Just great.

Man, looking back at this thread just makes me feel incredibly :nostalgic:. Honestly, we’ve been having these exact same arguments all over the internet for at least twenty years now.

It really just boils down to one simple question: why does everyone act like moving on from someone—or just missing them—is some kind of massive, cosmic catastrophe? I don't get where this desperate need comes from to play vigilante—acting like you're some sort of moral authority tasked with policing people's emotions or bringing order to the entire universe.

At the end of the day, you just let the person go and move on with your life 🙂.