Talk:Passing lane

message: The hammer lane article was created without knowing the existence of the passing lane article. The hammer lane article contains valuable information on acceptace, trucker lingo/etymology, cultural references, and problems/solutions and this info should be merged accordingly to the more accepted title "Passing Lane" article. Sections should also be added into this new article for better flow. Possible section titles could include "Acceptance", "Abuse", "Cultural references", and "Variations". --TinMan 20:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The first two references in Hammer lane appear to be about a particular street named Hammer Lane and are therefore misplaced. The rest of the article appears to be geographically focused on one part of the world. If these can be overcome, go ahead and merge. You created that article instead of adding to this one, so you don't need support or help to move the info now, as you could have put it here in the first place. --Scott Davis Talk 14:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with Hammer Lane

message: Is it NOT illegal to drive in the passing lane without passing in any state? As far as I know, it has always been illegal in all states, period. Does anyone else have any info on this?
:: I don't think it's illegal to drive in the passing lane without passing.  What generally IS illegal, I believe, is to not yield to another motorist who wishes to overtake in the passing lane.  No matter how it's worded, you're not going to get ticketed unless you are impeding traffic, which people do so often without getting tickets that I am beginning to doubt that it's a law at all.
JudgeX (talk) 20:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In most states, its illegal for slower traffic to be in left lane, but you are partially right, its not strictly reserved for passing (as I had been taught when I was young.) It's seldom enforced. Only a few states expect to you to move out of the way as you suggested, which is rediculous since too many people do not pay attention to their rear view mirrors. Check this website out, which should probably be put into article. http://www.mit.edu/~jfc/right.html Jcchat66 (talk) 20:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

text: From the Rhode Island Statues, "§ 31-15-2  Slow traffic to right. – Upon all roadways any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway," http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/Statutes/TITLE31/31-15/31-15-2.HTM Note how it says "normal speed of traffic", rather than "anyone going faster than you, but not faster than the speed limit because they're the scum of the Earth and should be shot." Counterfit (talk) 06:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  All 50 States? 

message: The context of the remark makes it clear that a citation is needed to support one or both of the statements in the sentence.  The Massachusetts statute doesn't support either. Tedickey (talk) 22:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misquoted statute 

message: The article explains why "other countries" like Hungary use the words inner and outer (because the lane is innermost or outermost). What's the reason for the British usage, as in why does "outermost" refer to the lane nearest the center, and "innermost" for the lane you start in?
The reason is perfectly simple. In either direction the overtaking lane is outermost. The terminology does not apply to the the two carriageway combined. You might just as well ask why the North American 'left lane' is not called the 'central lane'. DavidCrosbie (talk) 01:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing explanation for British/Irish terminology 

message: I don't know who Michael Carmody is, what kind of ego-maniac thinks it's normal practice to edit wikipedia with statements like "I'm joe nobody and I don't agree with this...." If everyone did that wikipedia would become a giant discussion forum.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.109.225 (talk) 03:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael Carmody, we don't care 

message: To wit:
"A common problem arising from misuse of the "fast lane" is that it forces faster moving traffic that wishes to overtake on the left to change lanes, do so on the right, and then change lanes again."
Faster traffic is not "forced" to do a damn thing except yield the ROW to the vehicle to their front.
Perhaps nowhere else in traffic code is simple ROW so misunderstood.  Some states (VA, OR, WI) stipulate "unlawful speed forfeits right-of-way".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.250.147 (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: And why are they changing lanes again at the end? 72.200.151.13 (talk) 13:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article suffers stupid non sequitur/s 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Passing lane. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070929024202/http://www.cdot.info/Publications/Brochures/leftlanebrochure.pdf to http://www.cdot.info/Publications/Brochures/leftlanebrochure.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified