DaveinOlyWA said:
Sent this to a Washington State Trooper acquaintance of mine and he basically thought I was foolish for even considering the thought that it was ok to exceed the posted speed limit under any circumstances.
He also looked at what GRA quoted and stated that the phrase was put in to prevent someone from getting a ticket for driving below the posted limits when conditions did not allow such a speed safely and not as GRA had portrayed it to be.
He also stated that anyone driving 55 mph on a freeway where the average speed is 25 mph (in the congested lanes) would never be ticketed for "impeding" the normal flow of traffic. Since the posted limit is 65 mph A 10 mph difference is simply not enough of an impediment and despite what most may think, it is illegal to drive 66 mph on a road where the posted maximum is 65 mph. He stated "feel blessed you are in the HOV lane instead of the normal lanes"
As for why you won't get ticketed? He also says the greatest cause of accidents is the differences in speed and there is one of him and hundreds of us but if you think he will be pulling over the people doing 55 mph over the ones doing 75, he said and I quote... "Better get your wallets out"
Had a bit of time to waste this afternoon, so rode my bike over to the law library to do some research. Haven't been there in about 20 years, and everything's been digitized. They've got to have the least user friendly database I've ever used, but I managed to find a few things.
First, the definition of 'overtaking' was stated as follows (in cite to sec. 21753, Yielding to Passing):
"Overtaking", within Veh. Code 1935 sec. 528 [GRA note: and apparently subsequently never changed] requiring motorist to give audible warning before overtaking vehicle proceeding in same direction, meant to come or catch up with in a course of motion, rather than to catch up and pass.
Also in 21753, the construction placed on it stated :
This section, providing that except when overtaking and passing on the right is permitted, the driver of an overtaken vehicle shall give way to the right and shall not increase his speed until completely passed by the overtaking vehicle.
This section is violated when there is either a failure to give way to the right on an audible signal from an overtaking vehicle, or an increase in speed before the overtaking vehicle has completely passed.
It went on to note that someone driving in a middle lane wasn't statutorily required to move over if an overtaking vehicle flashed its lights/made an audible signal, although this was considered courteous, thus definitely establishing that overtaking as defined can take place in the same lane.
As to whether HOV lanes constitute part of the rest of the road or are completely separate, found a cite (didn't copy it, but this is the gist) that a truck was legally entitled to drive in the next lane to the left of the rightmost lane, because there were three normal lanes plus an HOV lane, and the HOV lane was counted with the rest of the lanes to meet the four lanes in one direction criteria to allow a truck to use any but the rightmost lane.
Taken together with the proceeding cite, this would imply that the HOV lane is considered the left-most lane rather than a completely separate piece of road, and thus the requirement to yield to the right when overtaken would apply, when safe to do so (i.e. at the next available exit from the HOV lane).
Finally, impeding traffic in an HOV lane by a private auto has apparently not been adjudicated in California (or at least I couldn't find it), but one case's precedent seemed to imply that they would be considered impeding if it were ever brought to trial. The case involved whether a school bus could use an HOV lane. This went to trial, was appealed and the bus company lost. A member of the state legislature then asked for clarification from the State Attorney General's office (1996; AG Dan Lungren), which replied as follows:
HOV lanes are designated for the maximum speed allowed for the particular area. It would be unreasonable to allow a slow moving vehicle to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic in an HOV lane, where it is prohibited from travelling at the speed limit designated for the HOV lane [GRA note: earlier the AG response stated that school buses are limited by CA. law to a maximum speed of 55 mph; HOV lanes have max. speed limits in California of 65-70 mph]. We are to interpret statutory language in a manner which considers the consequences that would follow from a particular construction . . . but not readily imply an unreasonable legislative purpose . . . We conclude, therefore, that a school bus may not travel in an HOV lane located in a separate corridor in the middle of the freeway, even though entry and exit are from an overpass from the right-hand side of the freeway [GRA note: that was the exception that the bus company was hoping would allow them to use the HOV lane].
That implies to me that someone voluntarily choosing to travel at 55 mph in an HOV lane when the conditions would otherwise allow travel at the speed limit of 65-70 mph, and who has been overtaken, would be "imped(ing) the normal and reasonable movement of traffic in an HOV lane," and would need to speed up (or yield by moving over at the earliest safe opportunity) to allow people to pass. Any other construction would be logically inconsistent with the reasoning as to why a vehicle legally limited to 55 mph can't use the lane. I'm surprised it hasn't gone to court yet.
And I think I've drifted far enough OT to end this here!