A note from reader R.B stated, “My sister, who drove vans for transporting the handicapped for years, claims that people chose to drive in the left lane because it is smoother.  People with disabilities would cry out in pain each time the van would hit drainage dips by the curbs and manhole covers.  Patients would be jarred by rough road in the right lane, because the deeper grooves in right lane occurred from frequent use.  We noticed that the right lane of I 90 was rough compared to the left.”

I concur that when two lanes are provided in the same direction of travel, the left lane is often the smoother lane.  In fact, at times when it affects no other traffic, I’ve been known to ride there to avoid the stud-worn, cobblestone-like right-hand lane even if I’m not passing another vehicle, about to turn left, or moving left to accommodate a merge.

Those last three conditions are legitimate reasons for use of the left lane, but “seeking a smoother ride” is not. Although I, R.B’s sister and others may sometimes use the left lane to avoid the rougher, right-hand lane, there is no wording in the law that allows it. Therefore, I, like others who might move left for comfort at times, should have a good “line” ready when confronted by law enforcement officers or traffic court for the infraction of riding in the left lane without legal cause.

R.B’s note continued, reading, “Sister also complains that in WA the notices for road construction are placed way too far ahead so drivers ignore ‘til time to merge and then long bottle-necks [ensue].  She said in Idaho and MT the road merges right away.  No bottle-necks. They announce road closed ahead and close the lane with cones within a block or so. The traffic moves smoothly.  What do you think?”

Though her sister’s observations are anecdotal, they’re worthy of discussion.  I do wonder, however, the difference between Washington drivers who “ignore ‘til time to merge” and Idaho/Montana drivers who have less warning but still merge when required.

I think that too-soon advance warnings for lane closures do create two factions:  those who merge immediately and those who wait until the last possible moment.  I’m not certain if the presence of those two groups creates any more merge mayhem than what is created by a short-warning merge, but it might.  I suspect that the biggest factor in bottlenecks at road-narrowing merges is the volume of traffic present at the time.

Readers have previously debated whether drivers should merge right away when warning signs are noticed, or wait until the narrowed road actually forces a merge.  As R.B asked, “What do you think?”

Speaking of debate, D.W. takes exception to reader D.Z.’s suggestion, printed here a couple of weeks ago, that a truck being passed should slow slightly to expedite things.

D.W. stated, “I wanted to get my two cents worth in regarding big trucks passing each
other.  I disagree that the passee should slow up so that the passer should be able to get in the right lane quicker.  It is too tough for trucks to get their momentum back up.  It should be up to the passer to see when a good time to pass is without holding up too much traffic.”

I concur that the ideal pass is simply an expedient one by the passer.  D.Z.’s suggestion may be viable, though, when one truck’s attempted pass becomes a standoff or “rolling roadblock” due to unforeseen circumstances (like the passer losing momentum due to grades, curves or misjudgment of available passing power).

During this summer’s road trip I noticed that most truckers were not flashing their lights as a signal that there was clearance to return to the lane in front of them.  I have been accustomed to seeing this courtesy signal for years — is it a waning practice?  In a related observation, it seemed like most trucks waited for an abnormally long time and clearance distance of trucks being passed before returning to the right lane after a pass — another new normal?

Readers may contact Bill Love via e-mail at precisiondriving@spokesman.com.

---

---