People are idiots. Free will and rational thought are in a constant battle for dominance. People hear what they want to hear, and they will believe only what seems to support their biases. This is a scientifically proven principle. Very few of us have truly open minds.Knowing that, I love to stir things up. There are many things that people ‘know’ that simply are not true. Although I sometimes take on the responsibility to correct the ill-informed, I am not a know-it-all. I will admit there is a multitude of things I know little or nothing about. But regarding the things I do know, I have attempted to do the proper research to be sure that I do know the facts.
An intelligent, informed society is a healthy society. I try to do my part to enlighten. That’s my public service.
I used to read the letters to the editor in the local newspaper nearly every day. They’re on the opinion page, so as you would expect, there are many varied opinions expressed in those letters. Many of those opinions are based on fact, but just as many are based on misinformation. I was entertained by the odd positions some writers took on different issues. I always wondered how some people came to have such bizarre ideas. I still wonder.
The page eventually became dominated by a handful of grumpy old men who had something say about everything. I no longer read their boring, pointless letters. But back then, I would occasionally write a response to a letter in order to set someone straight on the facts, or, again, just to stir things up.
One day, many years ago, a fellow wrote to express his disdain for drivers who hog the left lane, which he called the ‘fast lane.’ His position was that if he flew up behind someone in his fast lane, regardless of that other driver’s speed, that lane hog is required by law to move to the right and let him pass. The proof, he said, was in the frequent signs that read, “Slower Traffic Keep Right.” In his opinion, those signs granted him an exclusive right to use that lane, as long as he was going faster than everyone else.
It’s a very common misinterpretation of the signs and the law. There are also many drivers who feel they have a right to use the lane on their terms, regardless of the signs or the law. To assert that right, they will ride your bumper, flash their lights, and honk their horns—all illegal acts. Some will choose to display other gestures. I suppose it’s just their way of saying please.
This particular letter writer made it clear the lane was his, and he ranted on and on about it, right up to his 200-word limit.
Knowing the law, and being somewhat of an ass, I had no choice but to respond with my own letter.
I began my rebuttal with a disclaimer: “Although I do move over for someone wanting to pass, I am not legally required to do so.” I repeated that disclaimer at the end of my letter. It seemed clear enough to me.
Sandwiched between those clear disclaimers, I explained the details of our state laws regarding lane use. Among other things, the law states that a driver must not obstruct or interfere with the ‘normal and reasonable’ flow of traffic—in any lane.
It sounds pretty straight forward, except that the definition of “normal and reasonable” is not stated in the Oregon Motor Vehicle Code. However, it can be deduced, as it is interwoven into the fabric of the text.Fortunately, I knew from my own research that, because of the Oregon’s ‘Basic Rule,’ ‘reasonable’ never includes speeding. Drivers may ‘normally’ cruise at 75 MPH in that 65 MPH zone, but it is never considered ‘reasonable.’ The law requires both normal and reasonable.
Since exceeding the speed limit is never legal, by law it is never reasonable. The signs that state “Slower Traffic Keep Right” refer to traffic that is slower than the speed limit, but only if it is holding up the reasonable—legal—flow.
So, if I am in the left lane, traveling at the posted speed limit, I am required to yield only to emergency vehicles. If I am traveling slower, and no one is behind be wanting to pass, I am still legally entitled to use that lane. Oregon does not have a ‘fast lane.’ If anything, it has a slow lane.
My simple, fact-filled, non-judgmental letter generated a tremendous community response. I was not prepared for the fury that would be unleashed, and directed fully at me on the opinion page. I did get a few supportive letters (there were apparently several other knowledgeable readers out there), but most were viciously angry.
The response was much better than I had expected. For other letters I had written, I normally had gotten a letter or two in support or rebuttal. It appeared that the community was passionate about this issue!
“How dare you take it upon yourself to police the highway. Your self-righteous attitude creates a more dangerous situation for all of us. Are you the guy in the supermarket who yells at the guy in front of you with 11 items in the 10-or-less lane?”
The least offensive of the nasty letters were in that vein. None of the writers seemed to have read the disclaimer that I opened and closed with: I don’t hog the left lane; I do move over; I simply am not obligated to. That’s the law. I get out of your way because it’s the courteous thing to do, and because you road-rage-filled cretins are likely to shoot me if I don’t.
That didn’t matter to most of them. All they could see was the back of my road-dust-covered car blocking their paths to freeway nirvana. I laughed as I pictured them writing their angry letters, struggling to hold the pen with their middle fingers fully erect!
I had acquired my expert knowledge on this subject a few years earlier, from a column in the same local newspaper. That column was called “Cop’s Corner,” authored by a local state police officer who wrote weekly articles about law enforcement and traffic issues. In one article, he wrote about this very same lane-use issue.
Before I wrote my letter, I called the state police office to verify that the law had not changed since that article had appeared. I was ensured that my facts were indeed correct. My call was transferred a couple times, and each of the three officials that I spoke to gave me the same information.
There was no ambiguity. At the speed limit, the lane is all mine for as long as I want it. I was cautioned by each of them, however, that it is considered a safe practice to yield to the psychopath behind me. I assured them that I always do; I am, after all, a safe and courteous driver, and I am uncommonly sensitive to the needs of others.
By the time this letter-writing frenzy began, the original author of Cop’s Corner had passed away, and a local sheriff’s deputy had taken over the column. He continued to explore the same types of topics, mostly competently, although maybe not as eloquently.
Several days after the angry letters began taking over the newspaper’s opinion page, an article appeared in the Cop’s Corner column. I was surprised to find that this article was in response to my letter to the editor. And the current author was addressing me personally. He was calling me out for being a lane hog and for not knowing the laws. He even gave me what I’m sure was intended to be a disparaging nickname, “The Lord of the Left Lane.”
Regardless, I was proud to be featured in a newspaper column. I was honored to receive a nickname. But, of course the title was undeserved. Like the angry letter writers, the deputy had neglected to acknowledge my disclaimers.
There was no doubt that I was being attacked, but I was confident I had the ammunition to defend my position. And ironically, that ammunition came from the same column, a few years previously.
It was obvious the deputy thought that I was the one who didn’t understand the law. He described, in quite some detail, a few of the laws he could cite me for. He wrote that if he saw me on the freeway with five other cars stacked up behind me, he would cite me for obstructing traffic, even if I was doing the speed limit.
He said he would love to have the opportunity to see me in court and let the judge decide who was correct in his interpretation! It was a good article, right up to the point he threatened to cite me for driving legally. He was actually defending the ignorant, lawless jerks who wrote those hateful letters.
That was going too far. It was my civic duty to respond. Here was a civil servant, sworn to uphold the law, who clearly did not know the law! Perhaps he did, but chose to interpret it to suit his own biases.
So I fired off a final letter to the editor, and this time I directly addressed the misguided deputy. I was being threatened, by the community and him, and he would be held accountable!
I explained that I had checked several sources at the local and state offices of the Oregon State Police who are in charge of policing the state’s highways and enforcing the laws. They should know the law better than anyone. I explained why the deputy was incorrect in his interpretation of each law he cited.
I tried to enlighten him on the correct interpretations of each of the laws he threatened to arrest me for violating. I explained that his Cop’s Corner predecessor, and the entire Oregon State Police Department had supported my interpretations, and the laws had not changed.
I also questioned his motive for selecting my letter to address, rather than the original letter that prompted my response. That writer had some obvious anger-management issues that would make him a real danger on any road.
That grumpy old man, and many of the other writers who responded should not have driver’s licenses. The deputy was picking on the wrong guy.I humbly added that I was not worthy of the nickname so generously, but inappropriately bestowed upon me. I suggested that he should go back and reread my letter to see I was not hogging the fast lane. He should have done that before making the overt threats. I was simply explaining the law to the ignorant letter writers, and now him.
I finished by telling the deputy how I would love to take him up on his offer to meet him in court and have him explain to the judge why he let the 5 tail-gating speeders go, and why he instead gave the ticket to me, a law-abiding, safe-driving citizen.
Those 5 jerks would soon be tailgating another car, terrorizing another legal driver. Those are the ones he should take to court. Those are the ones who should be in jail.
My letter was sent, and I was astonished by what happened next. One of the newspaper’s editors contacted me, and asked me to verify the sources of the facts I presented before they could publish my letter. I have broken no laws. I have not advocated breaking any laws. But I was being required to prove my case. To an idiot newspaper editor!
I suggested that he call the main headquarters of the state police himself. Ask the person who answers the phone what the law is. Then, if not satisfied, ask to be transferred to anyone else, and ask him. You can do this all afternoon and get the same information I got. I told the editor that anyone who answered the phone would know the law. Even the janitor would know the law.
I knew the law. The deputy clearly did not. Why was he not asked to verify his information? I have seen many letters to the editor that would never have been published if those writers had to verify anything.
But the editors must have verified my facts. My letter was published, and that same morning, to my great delight, the whole sordid story was being featured on a local radio talk show.
Listeners on both sides of the controversy were calling in to express their opinions. The hosts loved my first letter, as well as my response to the Cop’s Corner article. They said I was ‘brilliant.’ I was invited, if I was listening, to call in. I did call to chat and to fully bask in my glory. I was a celebrity that day.
I felt somewhat vindicated by how it seemed to end. The cop had nothing to say after that. No letter to the editor. No follow-up article. No personal phone call to apologize. I moved on to other battles, and I assumed he had, too. The letters to the editor about the issue eventually faded away.
It would be 20 years before I was to receive the final, sweet vindication.
I had signed up for a driver safety information class, sponsored by the county sheriff’s office. On the morning of the class, I arrived to discover that my instructor would be my old Cop’s Corner adversary.
How could he teach me, I wondered? I schooled him! But that was a long time ago, and I was there to learn, so I went in with an open mind and a good attitude. He was a sergeant now, so he must have learned something.
I decided that I would introduce myself at the end of the class. I was certain he would remember me.
It was a four-hour class, and he covered a lot of topics that day. He did a great job of keeping the class informative and interesting. I enjoyed it, and I learned a lot.
Over three hours into the class, he finally got to the subject I had been waiting for since discovering who the instructor was. The deputy was going to discuss proper lane use. I admit, I was a bit anxious.
We soon discovered that one of his many pet peeves was the fast-lane hog, still, after all these years. But after telling us how much it irked him, in rich detail and colorful language, he made a confession, a confession that was obviously painful for him to make.
Apparently he had issued tickets to several drivers for obstructing traffic by failing to move out of the left lane. But the judge, “in his infinite wisdom,” dismissed the cases, because there was no evidence presented to indicate that the drivers were going slower than the speed limit.
Therefore, there was no violation of the law prohibiting obstructing ‘reasonable’ traffic flow. That is exactly what I had been trying to get across to him and those letter-writing buffoons 20 years before.
To his credit, he shared the story, for the greater good of our education, but I still don’t think he is satisfied that the law is being properly interpreted by the courts. He continued to call it the fast lane throughout the class. He told the story like he still has a chip on his shoulder. He apparently had not totally moved on.
In the end, I decided not to introduce myself. I had initially thought we could laugh about it now, 20 years later. But in light of his confession, it would have felt like an “I told you so.” I don’t do those.
He did seem like a nice guy, and he did a great job with the class, but this was clearly a sore subject for him. I felt that, with his confession, I had finally received the long-awaited, full vindication. I did not need the neener-neener, too.
It is my intention to expose ignorance, not the ignorant. They are better equipped for that than I am.
Scott Wright ©2017