Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / 4x4 Cars / October 2006
There's much more than drunk drivers that need to be controlled
|
|
Thread rating:  |
donquijote1954 - 28 Sep 2006 21:09 GMT There's much more than drunk drivers that need to be controlled. It's the whole system that needs to be changed. The License to Kill given to absolute beginners, the lack of lane discipline (passing on the right, something unheard of in Europe), the reckless talk on the phone, the driving of monster vehicles with raised bumpers that can kill above the protection area of any other car, the insurance companies that fail to make those guilty ones pay for every loss they cause, and so many other areas in which the government and organizations such as Mothers Against Drunk Drivers are totally indifferent.
In the meantime the jungle continues out there...
"It's No Accident: The Real Story Behind Senseless Death and Injury on Our Roads" by Lisa Lewis
Description: For more than 30 years, the government has been ramming cars into walls in an effort to make car crashes safe. The public has been conditioned to believe that seatbelts, airbags and more "crashworthy" vehicles are the best ways to protect us from harm on the roads. Meanwhile, the most basic strategies to deter dangerous driving and prevent crashes have been ignored. "It's No Accident" provides a rare glimpse into how the government got seduced by the promise of "safe crashing." It then examines the major factors involved in crashes today, including speeding, aggressive driving, distractions (e.g. cell phones) and drowsy driving. The author reveals that many dangerous behaviors are now promoted by businesses, and that drivers who kill often walk away with just a small fine. This expose is a must-read for anyone concerned about what's happening on our roads and how to stop it.
Reviews: Interesting ... 2 Dec 2005 (updated 15 Dec 2005) by John This book is a very nuanced discussion of the problems of road safety. The author challenges the government, the insurance industry, the auto industry, the media, the motorists, and even Mothers Against Drunk Driving to defend the outrageous and immoral behavior that we're seeing on the roads today -- and the degree to which they are contributing to it. It is a no-holds barred expose that reveals the hard truths about behaviors and policies that put innocent people at risk on the roads.
Right on Target [ No Rating ] 10 Jan 2006 by falconer I ordered three books from the vendor and requested that my order be mailed by federal express (it was a cost of $14.00). They indicated that I would receive the books on the following Tuesday and I did. I was pleased with the service. I would like to compliment you for a book that is well written. I have not looked at car safety as much from the crash prevention but from crash mitigation. You are so on target. The book needs to be read by many, I am trying to encourage everyone I know to read it. I have about twenty pages left. I can feel your frustration....... and I really agreed at how you look at MADD it is not only drinking but it is speed,following too close and of course those cell phones users. I will be sending your organization more money by the end of the week ( I made a pledge of 50.00)./ MADD should listen to all of the accidents included fatal ones that happen everyday in the morning as people are going to work.........
http://www.lulu.com/content/186268
WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
BIKE FOR PEACE http://webspawner.com/users/bikeforpeace
BE - 28 Sep 2006 21:19 GMT That's right, what passes for safety these days is nothing more than accident survival.
The emphisis needs to return to accident prevention and the enforcement of lane integrity laws.
PeterD - 28 Sep 2006 22:49 GMT >That's right, what passes for safety these days is nothing more than >accident survival. > >The emphisis needs to return to accident prevention and the enforcement of >lane integrity laws. ANd we can put that emphisis on just AFTER we get rid of the SPAMMERs such as the original poster who is just flogging his books.
donquijote1954 - 30 Sep 2006 18:58 GMT > >That's right, what passes for safety these days is nothing more than > >accident survival. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > ANd we can put that emphisis on just AFTER we get rid of the SPAMMERs > such as the original poster who is just flogging his books. Sure. If you even deny there's a problem, can you ever fix it?
I think you are related to the ostrich.
Zoot Katz - 29 Sep 2006 02:23 GMT >That's right, what passes for safety these days is nothing more than >accident survival. > >The emphisis needs to return to accident prevention and the enforcement of >lane integrity laws. Hollywood and Madison Avenue make reckless driving appear sexy.
You pig headed coffin jockeys don't realise that you can never look sexy in your plastic lined cages.
You'll always look like dupes.
 Signature zk
Matthew Russotto - 29 Sep 2006 20:35 GMT >You pig headed coffin jockeys don't realise that you can never look >sexy in your plastic lined cages. Of course I can't. As long as the passenger does, that's fine :-)
 Signature There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one.
brink - 05 Oct 2006 06:36 GMT >>That's right, what passes for safety these days is nothing more than >>accident survival. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > You'll always look like dupes. I hate to say it, but after a 20-mile bike ride, I don't exactly look fresh as a daisy. Not that there's anything wrong with that... I just wouldn't want to go to a nice restaurant by bike 20 miles away. I'll look much better when arriving by car.
brink
donquijote1954 - 05 Oct 2006 18:57 GMT > > You pig headed coffin jockeys don't realise that you can never look > > sexy in your plastic lined cages. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > want to go to a nice restaurant by bike 20 miles away. I'll look much > better when arriving by car. The bottom line is that people have options to get around in safety, and that's hardly the case. The Hummer and F-350 are above the car, and they all are above the motorcycle and bicycle. The Big Fish eats the Little Fish...
Plot Summary for Life (2000) In life, the big fish eats the little fish, and the bigger fish eats the big fish. To illustrate this basic truth, thirty-three animators each introduce a character who eats the one previously introduced and is eaten by the next animator's creation. It happens on land and at sea, with humans, animals real and imaginary, aliens, a few plants, and a robot. They are chomped whole, sliced, smashed, flattened, inhaled through straws, eaten from the inside out and the backside forward. Sometimes the little guy wins; nothing and no one is invincible. By the end, we've come full circle.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0265283/plotsummary
Keith Schiffner - 07 Oct 2006 05:44 GMT >>>That's right, what passes for safety these days >>>is nothing more than [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > brink Oh bovine excrement...women subconsciously find it sexy. Not their faulty mind ewe, it's a biological thing...evolutionary that is.
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS - 29 Sep 2006 07:14 GMT >That's right, what passes for safety these days is nothing more than >accident survival. > >The emphisis needs to return to accident prevention and the enforcement of >lane integrity laws. Lane integrity laws.?? HAHAHA. What about the deadly speeders and drunk drivers, you nitwit??
n5hsr - 29 Sep 2006 10:22 GMT >>That's right, what passes for safety these days is nothing more than >>accident survival. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Lane integrity laws.?? HAHAHA. What about the deadly speeders and > drunk drivers, you nitwit?? Yeah. Here in Illinois, you're supposed to use a signal when changing lanes. That's been a law since 1965 and they still don't do it on average up here.
Or the law about turning your lights on when using your wipers. That's been a law since 1990.
Or the law about doing more than 20 over the limit is a felony. If that's so, then 99.999% of the drivers on the TriState Tollway are felons, because the average speed most of the time is nearer 80 than 55. I've seen some days when it hit closer to 90, and even the right lane is going 75-80.
Charles of Schaumburg
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS - 29 Sep 2006 16:53 GMT >Or the law about doing more than 20 over the limit is a felony. If that's >so, then 99.999% of the drivers on the TriState Tollway are felons, because >the average speed most of the time is nearer 80 than 55. I've seen some >days when it hit closer to 90, and even the right lane is going 75-80. > >Charles of Schaumburg I don't believe there is any such law, though i'd love to see it. You got a link?
n5hsr - 30 Sep 2006 10:36 GMT >>Or the law about doing more than 20 over the limit is a felony. If that's >>so, then 99.999% of the drivers on the TriState Tollway are felons, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I don't believe there is any such law, though i'd love to see it. You > got a link? No, I got that one straight from a State Policeman that is a friend of mine. No, he wasn't writing me a ticket. . . . .
Charles of Schaumburg
Bob - 30 Sep 2006 05:42 GMT > Or the law about doing more than 20 over the limit is a felony. If that's > so, then 99.999% of the drivers on the TriState Tollway are felons, because > the average speed most of the time is nearer 80 than 55. I've seen some > days when it hit closer to 90, and even the right lane is going 75-80. > > Charles of Schaumburg If such an Illinois law existed you could be closer to being right than wrong. Unfortunately for your hyperbole however, there is no such law. I can only guess that you are referring to the "fleeing to elude police" statute in which case you should stop quoting the law until you actually *read* it.
Try- http://www.law.cornell.edu/states/illinois
Regards, Bob Hunt
n5hsr - 30 Sep 2006 10:38 GMT >> Or the law about doing more than 20 over the limit is a felony. If >> that's [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Regards, > Bob Hunt 1. Page doesn't link.
2. I have a friend who just happens to be a State Policeman who told me about it. Either he's lying to me (very doubtful) or he was lied to by his superiors.
Charles of Schaumburg
Bob - 30 Sep 2006 14:09 GMT > > Try- http://www.law.cornell.edu/states/illinois > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > about it. Either he's lying to me (very doubtful) or he was lied to by his > superiors. Google it or try a cut and paste to that site because your statement has (20 MPH+ over the speed limit is a felony) absolutely no basis in Illinois law.
At least two more possibilities exist BTW.
3. Your friend misunderstands the law (very doubtful because even if he did, the Assistant State's Attorney would set him straight the very first time he called in to felony review for approval of charges on a simple speeder) or; 4. You misunderstood him.
Regards, Bob Hunt
Matthew Russotto - 30 Sep 2006 23:51 GMT >>> Or the law about doing more than 20 over the limit is a felony. If >>> that's [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >about it. Either he's lying to me (very doubtful) or he was lied to by his >superiors. He's a cop, cops lie. His boss is a cop, cops lie. You're a semi-anonymous Usenet poster repeating a friend-of-a-friend story...
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs.asp
65 ILCS 5/11-601.5 says that doing 40 over is a class A misdemeanor.
 Signature There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one.
Tim Kreitz - 29 Sep 2006 14:48 GMT > Lane integrity laws.?? That's right.
You see, enforcing lane discipline and eliminating tailgating in the States would demonstrate that highway speed limits are largely unneccesary -- but the cops and politicians don't want that. After all, safer highways mean less revenue for the government. Instead, they allow unskilled nincompoops in 6,000-pound SUVs to drive like the inattentive morons they are, nabbing them in droves for going 5-over at $150 a pop. Easy money.
Any number of studies and stats can be googled that show how in areas where highway speed limits are higher, per-capita fatalities are LOWER. Germany, Italy, and (until recently) Montana are all good examples, just for starters.
Tim Kreitz 2003 ZX7R 2000 ZX6R http://www.timkreitz.com
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS - 29 Sep 2006 16:55 GMT >Any number of studies and stats can be googled that show how in areas >where highway speed limits are higher, per-capita fatalities are LOWER. >Germany, Italy, and (until recently) Montana are all good examples, >just for starters. HAHAHAHA. Don't start in with that nonsense again. The issue was settled back in 1974 when america went to the 55 and immediately highway deaths plumetted.
lubecki@hotmail.com - 29 Sep 2006 18:49 GMT > >Any number of studies and stats can be googled that show how in areas > >where highway speed limits are higher, per-capita fatalities are LOWER. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > settled back in 1974 when america went to the 55 and immediately > highway deaths plumetted. Heh. Drive a modern car at 75, and drive an early 70s car at 75. If highway deaths decreased with the speed limit lowered to 55, that's because old cars couldn't handle a faster speed. Modern cars can.
Tim is absolutely right. Pretty much anywhere speed limits were increased, the accident rates dropped or at worst remained the same. There was a case like this recently, where the speed limit was increased on a stretch of highway in Texas.
Speed limits that are too low make drivers bored and inattentive, which makes them more dangerous.
-Gniewko
Turby - 29 Sep 2006 21:37 GMT >>Any number of studies and stats can be googled that show how in areas >>where highway speed limits are higher, per-capita fatalities are LOWER. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >settled back in 1974 when america went to the 55 and immediately >highway deaths plumetted. The safest roads in America are Insterstate highways - they are also the roads with the highest average speeds.
 Signature Turby the Turbosurfer
n5hsr - 30 Sep 2006 10:47 GMT >>Any number of studies and stats can be googled that show how in areas >>where highway speed limits are higher, per-capita fatalities are LOWER. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > settled back in 1974 when america went to the 55 and immediately > highway deaths plumetted. But cars are actually much better now than the Detroit Land Yachts most were driving in 1974. My Corolla from back then could get up to 70. Anything over that and I'd start shaking parts off. My current Corolla's been up to 95, and it has over 226,000 miles on it, and regularly does 70 with no strain at all. As a matter of fact if I'm only doing 70, I'm way over in the slow lane on most tollways now, and someone's riding up my bumper. And it didn't really save that much gas. And those ridiculous 87 MPH speedometers. If I wanted a moped, I'd buy one. I buried the needle going downhill once. American cars may get their best mileage at 35, but the newer Japanese cars actually are geared to do better at 65-70.
And if you check the accident rates, on the Autobahn with its higher speed, it's still lower than our 65 MPH Interstates. And they can go 200 MPH legally on the Autobahn. They have Porches and Mercedes and Ferrarris over there. And a slower traffic keep right rule.
Charles of Schaumburg
morticide - 30 Sep 2006 18:06 GMT > >Any number of studies and stats can be googled that show how in areas > >where highway speed limits are higher, per-capita fatalities are LOWER. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > settled back in 1974 when america went to the 55 and immediately > highway deaths plumetted. In 1974 the Interstate highway system was still being built and was not completed until the late 1980s (I-95 in NJ Still incomplete!). 55-60 is about right on 2-lane roads.
Mmmmm'ever hear of highway hypnosis? That's a phenomenon commonly mentioned back in Federal 55 relating to long drives down the Interstate at 55. Its stats may have contributed to the later Federal 65. Check out ALL the facts...and see the benefits.
donquijote1954 - 30 Sep 2006 19:37 GMT > > Lane integrity laws.?? > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Germany, Italy, and (until recently) Montana are all good examples, > just for starters. You are even better as a candidate. The answer is not repression but rewarding of the good drivers who happen to be fast. Of course, SUVs over 70mph get a hefty ticket. ($500 for starters)
Or maybe we should abandon any hopes of having a good candidate and annex this country to Europe the way it once was (and apply its laws) in the name of globalization and a New World Order. The globalization trend we follow in China's path is not very good, in my opinion. ;)
lubecki@hotmail.com - 29 Sep 2006 18:43 GMT > >That's right, what passes for safety these days is nothing more than > >accident survival. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Lane integrity laws.?? HAHAHA. What about the deadly speeders and > drunk drivers, you nitwit?? Speeding isn't necessarily dangerous - inattentive driving is. Speed makes the consequences of an accident worse, but it rarely causes accidents. Cops could prevent many more accidents if they stopped targeting speeders and started giving tickets to people who change lanes without signaling, drive in the left lane and don't move over for traffic behind them, prevent others from mergin in front of them, eat and drink while driving, talk on the phone, fiddle with the radio, etc., etc.
Of course this is much harder than sitting in a speed trap with the radar gun, and would bring in less ticket revenue.
-Gniewko
donquijote1954 - 01 Oct 2006 18:26 GMT > Speeding isn't necessarily dangerous - inattentive driving is. Speed > makes the consequences of an accident worse, but it rarely causes [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Of course this is much harder than sitting in a speed trap with the > radar gun, and would bring in less ticket revenue. Right. It's all about money and not right and wrong. Anything that costs peanuts is not important...
RIDING A BIKE COSTS PEANUTS
OK, since the lion (for whom "peanuts" is not important) refuses to listen to the monkey asking for bike facilities,* let's scrutinize the secrets ($$$) of the political jungle, where "democracy" is the word of choice...
"Remember the Golden Rule: Those with the Gold, Rule" (saying)
"The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" (title of book)
And this one...
"Freedom is when the people can speak, democracy is when the government listens" -Alastair Farrugia
Oh, that one was so good. So let's see: The monkey can cry all he wants but he will be ignored. Tough life that of the monkey.
Other quotes...
"Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth" -Aldous Huxley
That one was deep. We all live in the lie (notice the word "lie" in li-on). And look at this one...
"The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don't have any" -Alice Walker
And this would threaten the order in the jungle...
"Democracy is when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the rulers" -Aristotle
And here they must be talking about the lion...
"The wild, cruel beast is not behind the bars of the cage. He is in front of it" -Axel Munthe
Many more quotes to entertain yourself are found at the link below. I hope you use them responsibly and don't start a revolution.
http://www.democracy.ru/english/quotes.php
*Riding a bike is good for the environment, great for peace, and excellent for your health. We need facilities, though, like BIKE LINES to be safe.
donquijote1954 - 01 Oct 2006 18:26 GMT > Speeding isn't necessarily dangerous - inattentive driving is. Speed > makes the consequences of an accident worse, but it rarely causes [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Of course this is much harder than sitting in a speed trap with the > radar gun, and would bring in less ticket revenue. Right. It's all about money and not right and wrong. Anything that costs peanuts is not important...
RIDING A BIKE COSTS PEANUTS
OK, since the lion (for whom "peanuts" is not important) refuses to listen to the monkey asking for bike facilities,* let's scrutinize the secrets ($$$) of the political jungle, where "democracy" is the word of choice...
"Remember the Golden Rule: Those with the Gold, Rule" (saying)
"The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" (title of book)
And this one...
"Freedom is when the people can speak, democracy is when the government listens" -Alastair Farrugia
Oh, that one was so good. So let's see: The monkey can cry all he wants but he will be ignored. Tough life that of the monkey.
Other quotes...
"Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth" -Aldous Huxley
That one was deep. We all live in the lie (notice the word "lie" in li-on). And look at this one...
"The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don't have any" -Alice Walker
And this would threaten the order in the jungle...
"Democracy is when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the rulers" -Aristotle
And here they must be talking about the lion...
"The wild, cruel beast is not behind the bars of the cage. He is in front of it" -Axel Munthe
Many more quotes to entertain yourself are found at the link below. I hope you use them responsibly and don't start a revolution.
http://www.democracy.ru/english/quotes.php
*Riding a bike is good for the environment, great for peace, and excellent for your health. We need facilities, though, like BIKE LINES to be safe.
dizzy - 30 Sep 2006 02:42 GMT >Lane integrity laws.?? HAHAHA. What about the deadly speeders and >drunk drivers, you nitwit?? Plonk!
donquijote1954 - 30 Sep 2006 18:52 GMT > That's right, what passes for safety these days is nothing more than > accident survival. > > The emphisis needs to return to accident prevention and the enforcement of > lane integrity laws. Maybe it ought to be included in Homeland Security if we want to see anything happening in the near future. As a matter of fact, zigzaging SUVs with drivers glued to their phone amount to terrorism.
Jim Higson - 28 Sep 2006 22:48 GMT > (passing on the right, something unheard of in Europe) Funny, I thought the UK was in Europe.
 Signature Jim
donquijote1954 - 30 Sep 2006 18:57 GMT > > (passing on the right, something unheard of in Europe) > > Funny, I thought the UK was in Europe. Not anymore. Now it's the 51st state.
Tom Keats - 30 Sep 2006 19:23 GMT >> > (passing on the right, something unheard of in Europe) >> >> Funny, I thought the UK was in Europe. > > Not anymore. Now it's the 51st state. I thought the 51st state was The Moon.
Which might be right, after good 'ol Wyoming, in some ways. Except there's more oxygen in Wyoming.
Better scenery, too. Less NASA and USSR junk lyin' around.
You can drive any way ya want on The Moon, as long as nobody's comin' at'cha.
Maybe it's more-or-less the same in Wyoming.
Maybe The Moon should be an extension of Wyoming. Just don't send horses there until there's a viable NO2/O2 atmosphere.
 Signature -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
Ed H. - 30 Sep 2006 20:26 GMT I thought Puerto Rico was the 51st state.
>> > (passing on the right, something unheard of in Europe) >> >> Funny, I thought the UK was in Europe. > > Not anymore. Now it's the 51st state. Dave Head - 28 Sep 2006 23:57 GMT >There's much more than drunk drivers that need to be controlled. It's >the whole system that needs to be changed. The License to Kill given to >absolute beginners, the lack of lane discipline (passing on the right, >something unheard of in Europe), There
is
nothing
wrong
with
passing
on
the
right.
Period.
I wish to hell people would stop coming up with this stuff. What Europe does is non-relavent in the USA. This silly law was repealed 30+ years ago here when we began building our interstates with left exits, among other things that included everyone being infuriated at someone in the left lane doing the SL - 10 mph and then getting a ticket for passing the SOB.
Dave Head
Nate Nagel - 29 Sep 2006 03:11 GMT >>There's much more than drunk drivers that need to be controlled. It's >>the whole system that needs to be changed. The License to Kill given to [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Period. Sure there is. In an environment where people are used to others driving correctly (i.e. not the USA,) they're not expecting to be passed on the right. Doing something that other drivers don't expect increases risk, however slightly.
> I wish to hell people would stop coming up with this stuff. What Europe does > is non-relavent in the USA. This silly law was repealed 30+ years ago here [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Dave Head The correct solution is to not have left exits and to enforce lane discipline laws, and then this discussion will be irrelevant.
nate
 Signature replace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
P.Roehling - 29 Sep 2006 07:04 GMT > The correct solution is to not have left exits and to enforce lane > discipline laws, and then this discussion will be irrelevant. Gee, if only the world were perfect...but it isn't, and never will be; which means that such arguments will remain relevant for the foreseeable future...or until whenever humanity becomes extinct.
Nate Nagel - 29 Sep 2006 10:17 GMT >>The correct solution is to not have left exits and to enforce lane >>discipline laws, and then this discussion will be irrelevant. > > Gee, if only the world were perfect...but it isn't, and never will be; which > means that such arguments will remain relevant for the foreseeable > future...or until whenever humanity becomes extinct. you make it sound like I'm suggesting something outlandish; I'm not. Currently the DC beltway is having several interchanges rebuilt and I believe that the long term plan is to eliminate left exits. So at least some highway engineers and urban planners agree with me. My other suggestion was to enforce an existing law. What's so radical about that?
nate
 Signature replace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
donquijote1954 - 30 Sep 2006 19:03 GMT > > The correct solution is to not have left exits and to enforce lane > > discipline laws, and then this discussion will be irrelevant. > > Gee, if only the world were perfect...but it isn't, and never will be; which > means that such arguments will remain relevant for the foreseeable > future...or until whenever humanity becomes extinct. It ain't so much about dying in one or another anonymous accident, but about being terrorized. Some call it "road terrorism."
donquijote1954 - 30 Sep 2006 19:17 GMT > > The correct solution is to not have left exits and to enforce lane > > discipline laws, and then this discussion will be irrelevant. > > Gee, if only the world were perfect... In the meantime let people drink and drive and kill and be merry. Why bother, the world ain't perfect...
ottguit@hotmail.com - 29 Sep 2006 04:10 GMT > >There's much more than drunk drivers that need to be controlled. It's > >the whole system that needs to be changed. The License to Kill given to [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >Most highways in North America have signs that say "Slower traffic keep right" seems to inidicate that we should pass on the Left. Bg
lubecki@hotmail.com - 29 Sep 2006 19:07 GMT > >There's much more than drunk drivers that need to be controlled. It's > >the whole system that needs to be changed. The License to Kill given to [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Period. Yes, there is A LOT wrong with it.
1. If you know that nobody will pass on the right, you can safely change to the right lane with a quick check that there is nobody next to you, because you know that there isn't anybody coming up faster from behind. This halves the number of lane-change accidents right there, because no such accident will happen in a lane change to the right.
2. You also know that traffic to the left is always faster, so people will take more care changing lanes to the left.
3. Lane discipline makes traffic flow much better. If you're driving fast, you can just stay in the left lane, and people will move right out of your way (which they can do easily and safely because of point 1). The fast driver doesn't have to weave in and out of traffic, which is another way that accidents are reduced.
4. Lane discipline makes traffic MUCH more predictable, which reduces accidents. At any point it's much easier to predict what any given car will or won't do. Again, this is much safer.
Lane discipline and the "no passing on the right" rule makes roads much safer. There is absolutely no doubt about it. And to address your problem with people having to pass a slow driver in the left lane - that's an issue of enforcement and driver education. In most places in Europe, the slow driver would quickly move out of the way, and if he didn't, he would be the one that gets the ticket.
-Gniewko
Dave Head - 29 Sep 2006 23:09 GMT >> >There's much more than drunk drivers that need to be controlled. It's >> >the whole system that needs to be changed. The License to Kill given to [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >change to the right lane with a quick check that there is nobody next >to you, You never know that, and such a paradigm is absolutely no excuse for not looking what is beside and behind your vehicle, no matter what. Could be a cop on a high speed run. Etc.
>because you know that there isn't anybody coming up faster from >behind. This halves the number of lane-change accidents right there, >because no such accident will happen in a lane change to the right. It sure will if people go to not looking thoroughly before the change lanes to the right.
>2. You also know that traffic to the left is always faster, so people >will take more care changing lanes to the left. Never going to happen with the 1) left exits in this country and 2) the drivers in this country.
>3. Lane discipline makes traffic flow much better. It might... if we could get away with it here. But it was tried, it didn't work, and the law was repealed. It as much a dead horse as one can get.
>If you're driving >fast, you can just stay in the left lane, and people will move right >out of your way (which they can do easily and safely because of point >1). The fast driver doesn't have to weave in and out of traffic, which >is another way that accidents are reduced. Ideal world. It'd be great. It'll never happen.
>4. Lane discipline makes traffic MUCH more predictable, which reduces >accidents. At any point it's much easier to predict what any given car >will or won't do. Again, this is much safer. And, as long as we have severely underposted speed limits, with people going fast on the right and using people in the left lane to block the radar signals from cops crusing the other way in the left lane... it'll still never happen. Get some sane speed limits... maybe we'd have a change at KRETP.
>Lane discipline and the "no passing on the right" rule makes roads much >safer. They would, if you didn't have 18 wheelers in the left lane climbing hills at 23 mph, passing other 18 wheelers that are climibing the same hill at 17 mph in the right lane. The beat goes on. Hell will freeze over before KRETP is practical in this country for a whole load of reasons.
>There is absolutely no doubt about it. And to address your >problem with people having to pass a slow driver in the left lane - >that's an issue of enforcement and driver education. In most places in >Europe, the slow driver would quickly move out of the way, and if he >didn't, he would be the one that gets the ticket. European experience is non-applicable to this country. All the theoretical stuff sounds great, but it ain't reality here, so, in the meantime, there's absolutely nothing wrong with passing on the right. Period.
Dave Head
>-Gniewko donquijote1954 - 01 Oct 2006 18:35 GMT > 1. If you know that nobody will pass on the right, you can safely > change to the right lane with a quick check that there is nobody next [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Europe, the slow driver would quickly move out of the way, and if he > didn't, he would be the one that gets the ticket. Absolutely true.
I wonder if any of our traffic officials have any clue about these issues, or they just get paid high salaries to look the other way.
Molesworth - 01 Oct 2006 20:26 GMT > > 1. If you know that nobody will pass on the right, you can safely > > change to the right lane with a quick check that there is nobody next [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > I wonder if any of our traffic officials have any clue about these > issues, or they just get paid high salaries to look the other way. Not true, in practice.
When there is 'no' passing on the right, everyone (60% of cars?) doing 70 (or more) are stuck on the outside lane, all close behind one another.
The inner lanes are virtually empty.
Except for the really impatient people who overtake (illegally in UK) on the right lanes - even if it's hard to stick behind someone doing 70 MPH *exactly* and hogging that lane, even tho the inside lanes are sparsely occupied.
Ever seen many people moving (and indicating) right to move over, then move back to the outside lane? No, they stay exactly where they are in the outside lane because 'I'm doing 70 and that's the limit, so I won't move over'.
Having driven on both interstates and motorways, I can say that 'any lane' driving on interstates is far better and utilises the expensive roads far better. This of course, assumes that the driver is spatially aware of traffic in front, behind and to the sides- not always the case when they are on the phone, eating burgers or drinking coffee at 70mph - but this is a concern whatever country one lives in.
Molesworth
Bill Brabender - 29 Sep 2006 23:42 GMT > On 28 Sep 2006 13:09:31 -0700, "donquijote1954" > <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Dave Head There's a reason they call it "undertaking" in the UK and it is still illegal there IIRC
Allowing for differences of left and right hand drive:-)
Dave Head - 30 Sep 2006 02:49 GMT >> On 28 Sep 2006 13:09:31 -0700, "donquijote1954" >> <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > >Allowing for differences of left and right hand drive:-) Fine, but _we_ aren't in the UK, and there is no more danger in passing on the right here than there is in passing on the left here.
Dave Head
Tomes - 29 Sep 2006 23:45 GMT > On 28 Sep 2006 13:09:31 -0700, "donquijote1954" > <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> > wrote: <snip> ....... the lack of lane discipline (passing on the right,
>>something unheard of in Europe), > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Dave Head In New Jersey USA it is actually illegal to pass on the right except on a multi-lane road when the passee is making a left turn. If you do it on a freeway (or even on a 2 lane road when the vehicle in front is making a left) it is specifically illegal and people do get tickets for it. Tomes
Dave Head - 30 Sep 2006 02:52 GMT >> On 28 Sep 2006 13:09:31 -0700, "donquijote1954" >> <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >left) it is specifically illegal and people do get tickets for it. >Tomes New Jersey is a famous nanny state that is going to protect absolutely everybody from absolutely everything, or so they think. Or, this may be more about making money via tickets. But in the vast majority of the remainder of the USA, including famously-speed-conscious Ohio, its still legal to pass on the right. Has been for 30+ years.
Dave Head
Old Wolf - 29 Sep 2006 06:11 GMT > There's much more than drunk drivers that need to be controlled. It's > the whole system that needs to be changed. The License to Kill given to > absolute beginners, the lack of lane discipline (passing on the right, > something unheard of in Europe) Call-sign of the LLB: criticism of "passing on the right".
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS - 29 Sep 2006 07:13 GMT >Description: >For more than 30 years, the government has been ramming cars into walls [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >with just a small fine. This expose is a must-read for anyone concerned >about what's happening on our roads and how to stop it. Yes indeed, the automotive industy encourages reckless driving because they make a fortune off replacing all the cars totalled in crashes every year. And the media is paid to go along with it by carrying all these sick commercials that glorify speeding and by referring to all crashes as accidents.
The highway murder problem is the biggest crime problem in america and the most correctable Stop coddling these deadly speeders and DUIs and phone-drivers.
PeterD - 29 Sep 2006 15:46 GMT >Stop coddling these deadly speeders and DUIs and phone-drivers. Yea, and make stepping on the brakes in the merge lanes a felony. You can't merge on a highway with your foot on the brake!
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS - 29 Sep 2006 16:56 GMT >>Stop coddling these deadly speeders and DUIs and phone-drivers. > >Yea, and make stepping on the brakes in the merge lanes a felony. You >can't merge on a highway with your foot on the brake! Are you serious??. Sometimes you have to slow down to merge. That's the stupidest idea i ever heard.
PeterD - 30 Sep 2006 14:11 GMT >>>Stop coddling these deadly speeders and DUIs and phone-drivers. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Are you serious??. Sometimes you have to slow down to merge. That's >the stupidest idea i ever heard. Repeat after me: you cannot merge on the highway with your foot on the brake. You have to be going the same speed, (or slightly faster) to merge, if you slow down, (and then eventually stop) you can't merge.
Then you are stuck at the end of the merge lane, stopped, (or almost stopped) traffic either wizzing past you at speed (as they should) or slamming on their brakes (and causing accidents; sorry, that's YOU causing accidents) to try to be nice and let you in.
I see you are one of those idiots who gets to the merge, at *half* the speed of the others, twists their head all the way around, puts their foot on the brakes and then thinks "Damn, it's so hard to merge on highways".
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS - 30 Sep 2006 16:46 GMT >>>>Stop coddling these deadly speeders and DUIs and phone-drivers. >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >brake. You have to be going the same speed, (or slightly faster) to >merge, if you slow down, (and then eventually stop) you can't merge. But the lane you're merging into often has vehicles going assorted speeds. THINK
Ludmila Borgschatz-Thudpucker, MD - 30 Sep 2006 20:56 GMT > Repeat after me: you cannot merge on the highway with your foot on the > brake. You have to be going the same speed, (or slightly faster) to > merge, if you slow down, (and then eventually stop) you can't merge. No, no, no. Here's how you merge. First, you MUST be talking on your hand-held cellphone. Follow the car ahead of you on the on-ramp as closely as possible. DO NOT, under ANY circumstances, even so much as glance into the lane into which you are about to merge. After all, you have the right-of-way, and cars already in the lane into which you and your bumper-to-bumper butt-buddies are merging are obligated to move to their left to let you in, regardless of whether it is safe to do so.
This is the way it is done in Minneapolis-St. Paul, where a quiz on rules of the road actually found that a majority of respondents actually believe that through traffic is obligated to make way for merging traffic.
donquijote1954 - 01 Oct 2006 18:18 GMT > > Repeat after me: you cannot merge on the highway with your foot on the > > brake. You have to be going the same speed, (or slightly faster) to [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > the road actually found that a majority of respondents actually believe that > through traffic is obligated to make way for merging traffic. I've seen another tendency out there. The smaller vehicle yields to the bigger one irrelevant of right or wrong. Very similar to the Law of the Jungle. Which is why many people consider bigger vehicles a necessity for survival.
Nate Bargmann - 02 Oct 2006 12:30 GMT > I see you are one of those idiots who gets to the merge, at *half* the > speed of the others, twists their head all the way around, puts their > foot on the brakes and then thinks "Damn, it's so hard to merge on > highways". Bingo!
Having seen this behavior for so long, I'm amazed that I haven't seen more crashes as a result. Also, many merge lanes are poorly designed by running uphill and shorter than need be for most vehicles to get up to speed when merging. Then there's grandpa and grandma who normally putt along at 25 MPH no matter where they are suddenly finding themselves on the Interstate...
- Nate >>
 Signature "The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds, the pessimist fears this is true."
donquijote1954 - 02 Oct 2006 18:29 GMT You must admit that some places are more civilized than others. In the UK, for example, they have figured out that order and cooperation is better than chaos and competition. Well, at least when it comes to driving...
How 2 Deal With Driving On Motorways Many new drivers worry about their first time alone on a motorway.
Motorways are safer, than normal roads, but they are also faster. Sometimes things do happen quicker, and you have to concentrate.
When you are on the main carriageway of the motorway, remain in the first lane until you get used to the speed. If you need to overtake you must return to the first lane as soon as possible but only if its safe to do so! Many motorists try to stay in the overtaking lanes for normal driving. This is bad practice and causes inconvenience and tailbacks and annoys other users.
There are two types of motorway, rural and urban. You need to think of them as quiet and busy. Quiet motorways are boring, so you need to concentrate on the road and traffic conditions way ahead. Busy motorways need your attention all around you rather than just focused ahead.
Motorways are like dual carriageways only safer. They are safer because every motorway user is travelling in the same direction and at similar speeds. Another reason why motorways are safer is due to the fact that traffic is restricted to those who can make best use of it i.e. no pedestrians, cyclists, moped, no L drivers (except HGV), agricultural vehicles, and animals. Motorways are also safer because there are no sharp bends, no oncoming traffic, no right turn, and no roundabouts. The lanes are always wide, and well marked, and are usually straight for long distances.
Remember you are not allowed to reverse, cross the central reservation, or to drive in the wrong direction on motorways.
On urban (busy) motorways each lane of traffic has an electronic signal system which applies to traffic in each lane. Care needs to be taken to make sure you know the various signals and what they mean. Motorway signs are being used with increasing frequency to warn you of hold ups or accidents ahead.
When joining a motorway you usually join from a roundabout or a main road by means of a slip road. This leads to an acceleration lane. The rule here is not to interfere with the traffic already on the motorway. Make sure your speed is the same as the traffic already on the motorway. Vehicles already on the motorway usually realise you need to join the main carriageway and they try and move over to the other lane. (This is not always possible if the traffic is busy). This makes room for you to join the first lane of the motorway. Mirrors and signals must be used correctly to avoid interfering with the following traffic. Full and proper observation as you enter usually involves looking over your right shoulder as well as using your door mirrors. Don't rely on mirrors alone.
To get off the motorway the normal procedure is to look for the first advance warning sign (1 mile from the exit). This sign gives the exit number and the road number.
At half a mile from the exit a second sign identifies the towns for the exit. Then at 300 yards from the deceleration lane there is a three line countdown marker, (at this point you should begin to signal left to say you are turning off - but don't slow down yet), followed by the 200 yd and 100 yd marker signs. Only when you have crossed into the deceleration lane should you begin to slow down.
Once you get back on to ordinary roads again, you need to watch your speed until you are acclimatised to the new lower speeds on the road. Don't forget too, that these roads are likely to have roundabouts, oncoming traffic, and sharp bends on them.
Breaking Down on the Motorway
Hopefully if your vehicle is well maintained and fuelled up, you should be in no danger of breaking down on the motorway, but we all know that even a car which is only a few hours old can still break down.
If you do break down then the hard shoulder is there to help you. When you are stopping on the hard shoulder (remember, only use the hard shoulder in an emergency), try to stop at one of the emergency telephones. This will save you time if you have to walk to the phone. Switch on your hazard lights and try to stop as near to the left as possible. If you have passengers get them out of the car, off the hard shoulder, and as far away from danger as possible. Do this before you go to use the phone. The phone is always within half a mile from any spot on the motorway. Look at the arrows on the nearest post, like the one in the picture on the left. These will tell you the direction to walk to the nearest phone. The phones are free to use, and connect you straight to the police who control that stretch of motorway. When you return to your vehicle to wait for help, do not get back into the car, but stay on the embankment, or as far away from the traffic as possible. If you have a mobile phone it's O.K. to use this initially, but the police do prefer you to use the roadside phones to confirm your exact location.
Remember that motorways are safe, but they are fast, you need to concentrate because things happen quicker than a normal road.
Lane Discipline
When driving along motorways always remain in the left lane unless you are travelling faster than traffic ahead of you and it is safe to move over to the right lanes. If you use these lanes you must return to the left lane as soon as it is safe to do so.
It is bad practice to try and stay in the overtaking lanes for normal driving. This annoys other users because they can see that you are avoiding the empty lanes on the left, or never using your mirrors to see the tailbacks that you are causing. Remember the two-second rule. Four seconds will give you time to react easily and you will be more relaxed.
http://www.2pass.co.uk/motorway.htm
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman - 30 Sep 2006 21:07 GMT > >Stop coddling these deadly speeders and DUIs and phone-drivers. > > Yea, and make stepping on the brakes in the merge lanes a felony. You > can't merge on a highway with your foot on the brake! Yes you can, if you are going significantly faster on the entrance ramp that the traffic in the right lane. This situation is common during congested periods where the traffic on the controlled access road is moving significantly SLOWER than the speed limit.
 Signature Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
PeterD - 30 Sep 2006 22:02 GMT >> >Stop coddling these deadly speeders and DUIs and phone-drivers. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >congested periods where the traffic on the controlled access road is >moving significantly SLOWER than the speed limit. Well, Jonny or Tom or whoever... Since you are supposed to accelerate to the speed of the traffic on the road.
The eventual outcome of slowing down is stopping.
Just what one old IDIOT did to me in Boston some years ago. Slammed on his brakes at the merge because he was afraid! I almost rear ended him, did pass him on the right (wrong by law, but the option was a big bang, body damage and probably injury) and still was able to merge on the highway. Without stopping. Without slowing down!
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman - 01 Oct 2006 00:43 GMT > >> >Stop coddling these deadly speeders and DUIs and phone-drivers. > >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Well, Jonny or Tom or whoever... Since you are supposed to accelerate > to the speed of the traffic on the road. Imagine the following. An entrance ramp that starts out about 20 feet lower in elevation than the controlled access road (not uncommon where the street that the ramp connects the controlled access road passes under the controlled access road). In addition to this difference, the controlled access road has a 4 foot high concrete barrier wall at the edge of the shoulder (also not uncommon).
If one accelerates up the entrance ramp at a normal rate for a modern automobile, the traffic on the controlled access road can not be seen until one is traveling 40-60 mph (depending on the exact rate of acceleration and relative heights of the vehicles). Now if that traffic is moving slower than that speed due to congestion, should one brake to match speeds and merge, or not brake and crash into the slower moving vehicles?
Please tell me, since I encounter this exact situation almost every week day.
> The eventual outcome of slowing down is stopping. Really? One can not slow to a speed faster than not moving, and maintain that speed?
 Signature Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
PeterD - 01 Oct 2006 18:28 GMT >If one accelerates up the entrance ramp at a normal rate for a modern >automobile, the traffic on the controlled access road can not be seen [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Please tell me, since I encounter this exact situation almost every >week day. Sadly, the answer is obvious. If you are going too fast, slow down. Of course. But that's not the problem:
What is sadder is that I see all the time drivers coming down the merge lane, at 10 to 20 MPH *LESS* than the traffic, and hit the brakes.
I've learned that if you are going the speed of the highway traffic it is most rare that you can't merge. If you are going faster, it is difficult to merge, but experience at the particular ramp can help with this. But if you are going slower then it is *IMPOSSIBLE* to merge, and hitting the brakes only makes things worse.
I usually drive a truck. If I see a car trying to merge, and accelerating I'll do everything I can possibly do to help that driver get in. But if the brake lights flash on, all bets are off--there's nothing I can do. I can't slow down (way too unsafe), usually speeding up isn't an option. Often times, moving over (especially if I"m in a slower truck) doesn't (usually) always work.
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman - 01 Oct 2006 23:17 GMT > >If one accelerates up the entrance ramp at a normal rate for a modern > >automobile, the traffic on the controlled access road can not be seen [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Sadly, the answer is obvious. If you are going too fast, slow down. Of > course. But that's not the problem: The car I drive at the engine speed range I normally use on the ramp will have about 25 pounds per horsepower, which puts it in the normal range for modern passenger vehicles. Since I can not accelerate from 30 to 60 mph in 3 seconds or less, I would rather be going 60 mph on the ramp so I can merge with the traffic if it is moving at normal "free flow" speed, rather than counting on it moving slowly and only accelerating to a lower speed. If there was a hard and fast rule that braking on the ramp was illegal, I would be violating the law for doing what is logical from a safety viewpoint, since I can decelerate at a much greater rate than I can accelerate.
> What is sadder is that I see all the time drivers coming down the > merge lane, at 10 to 20 MPH *LESS* than the traffic, and hit the > brakes. These people should have their licenses suspended until they learn to merge.
One of the amazing things I find about many US drivers is that they feel competent to follow another vehicle at less than 0.5 seconds of separation and drive at 70+ mph on two lane rural roads, yet they are scared to merge onto freeways and pass on two lane roads.
 Signature Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
bill - 01 Oct 2006 23:31 GMT >>> If one accelerates up the entrance ramp at a normal rate for a modern >>> automobile, the traffic on the controlled access road can not be seen [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > what is logical from a safety viewpoint, since I can decelerate at a > much greater rate than I can accelerate. Sounds like my 'Merge at 90' that I used to do when I first started driving. That wound up being my nick name in High school driver's ED. Of course the fact that we were doing the driving tests with big block 1964 Dodges made some difference. The point of my high speed merges was that I could slow down to pop into a hole in traffic. My instructor did not agree. Either way, I hate traffic. Bill Baka
>> What is sadder is that I see all the time drivers coming down the >> merge lane, at 10 to 20 MPH *LESS* than the traffic, and hit the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > separation and drive at 70+ mph on two lane rural roads, yet they are > scared to merge onto freeways and pass on two lane roads. donquijote1954 - 30 Sep 2006 19:27 GMT > Yes indeed, the automotive industy encourages reckless driving because > they make a fortune off replacing all the cars totalled in crashes [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the most correctable Stop coddling these deadly speeders and DUIs and > phone-drivers. You should run for office instead of that (what's her name) Hillary Clinton. Well, be ready to run without a chance because without money you don't have a chance, and the insurance companies won't back you up.
:( AIG Political Contributions by Subsidiaries Questioned in N.Y. September 21, 2006
Major corporations based in New York such as American International Group Inc. have legally contributed many times more than the corporate limit to political candidates who regulate their businesses, state and good-government officials said.
In the case of AIG, the insurance giant is limited to giving $5,000 (euro3,951) to a candidate. But the parent company used 33 subsidiaries in recent years to give $335,000 (euro264,738) to three-term Republican Gov. George Pataki; $50,000 (euro39,513) to Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, the Democratic front-runner for governor; and $25,000 (euro19,757) to Democratic Comptroller Alan Hevesi, according to The New York Times.
"That happens all the time,'' said Rachel Leon of New York-Common Cause, which for years has lobbied to reform this and other campaign finance practices.
"It's just one of the many loopholes that make our campaign finance laws meaningless,'' she said. "We might as well not have any limits because in the real world, they don't apply.''
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/east/2006/09/21/72628.htm
donquijote1954 - 30 Sep 2006 19:15 GMT > There's much more than drunk drivers that need to be controlled. It's > the whole system that needs to be changed. The License to Kill given to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > areas in which the government and organizations such as Mothers Against > Drunk Drivers are totally indifferent. What got me pissed is an email I received from a friend. It made me sick to stomach not only because it was gross, but because it's one of those acts in which the people always blame someone else (terrorists or the drunkard in this case) instead of facing their own responsibility (their phone use, for instance). It's part of the hypocrisy we all live under...
http://www.helpjacqui.com/home.htm
I'm adding my thoughts here to something I came across: "In a society where truth is so camouflaged and avoided," the li-on hunter (read lie hunter) is the most honest profession.
|
|
|