Ok, please don't flame me, but here's my honest opinion on HOV access here in CA (and driving in fast lanes in general)...

First, I consider myself lucky to be in an HOV lane by myself. I save a lot of time and I am mindful that there's growing resentment towards solo hybrid drivers here. I also think that even though the speed limit is 65 and I can get better mileage driving slower, I have to be mindful of the overall sentiment.

I wouldn't drive my BMW 65 mph in the HOV lane or left lane when people wanted to go faster, so why should I drive my HCH in the same? I am one of those jerks who likes to feel unimpeded. Has anyone driven in Germany where there is no speed limit on the autobahn? It is common courtesy to drive to the right UNLESS passing. I should say more...not only is it common courtesy, but it is expected. They were very particular about this (I was breaking in my new bimmer over there and couldn't drive over 80 mph or so).

For me, I respect this and also think it's practical. I hate it when there are open lanes to the right and some hogs out there just automatically move over to the left. Traffic flows better and EVERYONE saves time if we drive on the right hand side unless passing.

Now, for the HOV lane, I WILL exit and drive outside of it when traffic wants to go faster and I can keep a good clip in the 'general public' lanes. Let them speed.

Anyone see the South Park clip on smugness? I think we're being smug and arrogant of we aren't mindful of others--even speeders.

 

I will drive as fast as is safe for any lane. If traffic is moving at 35 MPH in the normal lanes and the carpool lane is available, I'll travel, perhaps, 50, because I know from experience someone will cross the yellow line right in front of me and I'll want to be able to stop safely or at least minimize the damage if unavoidable. Traveling 80 when the rest of traffic isn't moving is just shear lunacy and if someone wants to tail me for going 50 or so, then that is there problem, as far as I'm concerned, I'm driving safely and doing them a favor at the same time.

I have a camera that record my driving at all times. It (not me) witnessed someone doing exactly that, about 50 when traffic in other lanes was 35 or so. SUV was coming fast upon him doing a very high speed and then started to tail the pool chap inches from the bumper. Someone crossed the yellow lines doing less than the flow of traffic (I would estimate about 15 MPG) right in front of the car who hit his brakes and slammed into the car anyway and the SUV slammed into the car, sandwiching him between the two vehicles.

The driver of the sandwiched car, his wife, and two children were all killed before the CHP could arrive. The driver of the front car was little injured but the driver of the SUV was not injured at all.

No one pulled over to be a witness and there weren't any other witnesses on the accident report but the SUV driver lied about the story and wouldn't admit he was tailgating.

The next day I reviewed the tape to be sure if it was recording that day and sure enough it recorded the accident though I didn't see it happen, personally. I submitted the tape to the CHP the day after the accident and the SUV driver got in trouble for falsifying a police report and insurance fraud (since he lied on his statement to the insurance agency). I was never called into court but I did have a technical person try to have the evidence thrown out due to the potential to tamper. Fortunately, the camera records timestamped and that is not applied after the fact so the judge allowed it to stay. I'm not aware of the outcome or status of the case since.

But the point is, for all those who thing the HOV is the "fast" lane, need to wake up and realize that it is not "fast", it is for bypassing traffic when conjected, and if you drive in it faster than is safe, you'll suffer for it. Me, I will drive a safe speed if traffic is too much slower on the outside of it, but I won't do 80 even if being tailed, and if traffic isn't moving, I won't slow down and let people pass, but if he wants to pass, I'll let him, but it usually isn't possible.

If someone wants to be a jerk, that's fine, because the whole thing will be recorded on camera and I always let them tell their story and put it in writing before I notify the CHP that it was recorded. I've used the camera many times as a witness to other peoples incidents and its funny, in every instance someone was always lying and it was usually the person who would normally be found at-fault.


Thanks,
Shawn

 

When I grow up maybe I'll be perfect like you!

 

Shawn, what type of camera do you use? I have the same interest. I've heard the CHP uses cameras to record traffic as well.

I've noticed CHP has been out patrolling the HOV lanes (FINALLY) here in Southern Cali.

 

The camera that I'll be using in the Civic is from www.helmetcamera.com (there is another www.bulletcam.com) . This only takes care of the feed. You still need a recording device. At the moment, I use a camcorder (Hi-8) but am looking for a reasonably priced dual recording (so I don't need two camcorders) to record both front and back in the new car.

I'm still researching options for the Civic.

I'll give a more complete answer later when I get home but I've also researched the same systems the CHP use but they are pricey. My solution needs to be less than $1k total. The CHP solution I think it $3k or so (professionally installed).

You don't need to be sophisticated. Just need a lens to capture and a device to record. I mount the cameras on the ceiling near the front windshield and will mount the other on the ceiling near the rear window in the Civic.

It is important to continue recording after impact otherwise the recording may be useless (no front license plate but a rear one -- you'll want to record after something happens). The helmet cameras are durable and will withstand crushing forces.

DVD or digital recorders are worthless, mainly because the DVD recording will skip un bumpy roads but during impact will cease to function. I've found Hi-8 to work fine (anything that is tape recorded).

I'll reply back with better details later, on a seperate thread. For now I'm still researching what I want for the Civic, it won't be the same for the truck. For the truck I'm just using a camcorder but its a kludge (it works fine but has more problems than I can count). It certainly was useful those times I needed it but this time around I want a much better system, and something less likely to be stolen from someone breaking into the car.



Thanks,
Shawn

 

Question about HOV access across bridges. Are you supposed to exit the Carpool Lane when driving Solo across bridges? I have the special Hybrid Transponder but my understanding is that the carpool lane doesnt register transponder's. How do they know if you are driving Solo or Carpooling? Will you be pulled over by CHP if they catch you driving Solo over the bridges?

 

You're allowed to use the carpool lane on the bridges. They made you get a fastrak transponder so that they could charge you the toll on the fly. Except, it appears that they haven't installed the toll collecting electronics in the carpool lanes. That's their problem. If you have your transponder on the windshield or the dash when driving through, you're doing all that's required. Fear not.

My wife crosses the Bay Bridge solo in the carpool lane every day. The fastrak transponder has never beeped and she's never been charged. (The transponder does work when we use it in non-carpool lanes). It's a stealth freebee.

 

Having a camera came in handy-dandy today. Hope y'all don't mind an off-topic post, didn't feel like starting a new thread since it was previously discussed in this one.

Got a phone call today from the CHP today asking me to come and make a report regarding an alleged incident where I supposedly ran someone off the freeway and into a post on off the side of the shoulder. I stated I had no recollection of such a thing (I didn't know what happened until later in the day). They wanted me to come in anyway.

So I arrived and made my report, that at the approximate time of the incident I was at some approximate location (which was actually 1,000 feet from the incident location of a 26 mile drive (not bad estimation but not good for me, either). I was breifly interrogated and asked about the incident again and they pressed hard about falsifying a police report being a felony (but they did allow me 3 potty breaks and even offered me coffee (which I don't drink).

Anyway, I finally told them that I keep a running camera in my vehicle at all times and we should review it to see if a) was it functional at the time and b) does it help to clarify the situation.

We reviewed the tape (I have since adjusted it with a mirror to capture front and back of me). The tape showed a very interesting story. One that I wasn't even aware of until I saw the video: for the distance of about a few thousand feet before the accident, a vehicle comes racing through people at twice the speed of traffic (which was approx 23 MPH according to my video feed) and even passing on the shoulder lane. There comes an entrance/exit lane for some distance that people use as a passing lane, myself included, on the video. I blinked right for 8.9 seconds until, what in the video showed, a safe place to merge. So I did.

During the merge this vehicle comes zipping into the lane like there's no tommorrow, probly not expecting me to be making the merge but we would have, it appears, broadsided but he decided not to slow down (or honk, there was no honking in the recording) but instead to pull to the shoulder lane and speed up and attempt to cut-me-off. At some point I should have seen him but the video partially records me looking towords a different direction because of something else that happened.

He couldn't get in front of me because I'm way too close to the truck in front of me so he pulls completely into the shoulder and then, in the video, it shows his car smashed into a cunstruction generator/sign in the shoulder lane and I keep on driving (I currently don't record the sides or my blind spots but I'll look into it in the future).

Some other person called me in saying I ran this guy off the road and fled the scene of the accident but the person in the car that crashed had a similar story but added that I proked him and so on. Anyway, I ammended my report to include the video and that I was not previously aware of the incident before having seen the video and they asked me about the time stamp, whether I put it on before or after the incident. My recorder records with the time stamp. They placed a blank cassette tape in the recorder and had me record for 30 seconds and then matched the time stamp with their clocks and confirmed that I was 3.1 seconds ahead of them. I offered the original cassette tapes as evidence.

I then spoke with another officer who informed me that I most likely won't be held responsible, as there is nothing to indicate fault or aggrevation in the incident (they actually watched 18 minutes previous to establish my driving habbits and noted that I was in one lane the entire time, allowed people to pass/merge when blinking and so on.

Before I left, there was some talk that he will be charged with falsyfying a police report and that his insurance company will be informed (since he since reported a claim with the same story) and they will have the option to charge him with fraudulantly filing an insurance claim with intent to defraud (or something like that, not sure the exact words).

In any case, it never hurts to have a camera. When I get my setup in the Honda Civic Hybrid, I'll post details on the equipment, procedures, and installation, and price.


Thanks,
Shawn

 

Nice job Shawn.

I wonder if the person who reported you was in cahoots or racing with the person weaving in and out of traffic who finally crashed...

I also wonder if that person enjoys time in jail as insurance fraud is indeed a felony.

The CHP should be commended for recording a blank tape as part of the "chain of evidence" in the matter. You've basically helped make their case, prove your innocence and saved us all from more insurance fraud and higher rates.

Kudos.

 

The punishment will be significantly more severe if there is an injury involved. On the other hand, saying I ran the person off the road, can easily be "understood" given that we nearly broadsided. But that only tells part of the story. What isn't told by any person but is clearly visible in the video, is that he ran himself off the road and clearly had space to slow momentum but instead chose to attempt to cut-me-off and found himself in a foul disposition. The entire scene takes place in less than 3 seconds from the time I merge until the time he is at a complete stop smashed into the object on the side of the road. At 40 MPH (23 flow of traffic) that translates to very little reaction time, especially if he's too busy paying attention to me rather than what is in front of him.

The insurance company is free to make their own judgement and may even show mercy since nothing came of it yet (the case likely hadn't been assessed yet) but, then, what about the "is there anything else you'd like to add to your story?" and "is this information complete and accurate to the best of your memory?". In both cases, ommitting pertinent information can and should be construed as fraud. Because the police will charge him with falsifying a police report, any justice of law will, well, there won't be a defense, the insurance might jump the bandwagon, too.

Whatever the outcome, whether I'm privy to it or not, I won't be wrongly held accountable because a faulty witness and a jerk instigator chose to single me out. I wonder what ever happened to responsibility for ones actions in this society, America just seems to be happy making the choices but not pay the piper when the song is complete, and that starts at the top, with the President.

I'm glad I record.


Thanks,
Shawn