 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / July 2009Constant Speed driving vs. Constant Pedal Pressure driving
I drove the section of CA-166, from I-5 to US-101 Sunday (7/26) morning. During nearly 60 miles of the drive I had an intermittent tailgater. On the uphill sections, he'd fall behind, on the downhill sections he'd follow within one or two carlengths. He also tended to fall back on the curvy sections where the handling characteristics of his Yukon made him slow down, but where my 2002 Ford Taurus could proceed at a steady cruise controlled 63 MPH (posted 55 MPH). Although there were quite a number of sections where passing was permitted, all were at points where he had fallen behind, and where he did not catch up before the passing section ended. Note that he never flashed his lights nor did he ever attempt a passing maneuver. Should I have pulled over to let him pass, even though he never "asked"? >I drove the section of CA-166, from I-5 to US-101 Sunday (7/26) >morning. During nearly 60 miles of the drive I had an intermittent [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >permitted, all were at points where he had fallen behind, and where he >did not catch up before the passing section ended. I really don't know what to do with those guys. My Si has no problem with cruise control on all but the steepest hills, even in 6th gear, but there is always some schmuck in an automatic transmission econobox who flies over downgrades and sputters on upgrades. -- Cameron Kaiser * ckaiser@floodgap.com * posting with a Commodore 128 personal page: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ ** Computer Workshops: games, productivity software and more for C64/128! ** ** http://www.armory.com/%7Espectre/cwi/ ** >I drove the section of CA-166, from I-5 to US-101 Sunday (7/26) >morning. During nearly 60 miles of the drive I had an intermittent [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >permitted, all were at points where he had fallen behind, and where he >did not catch up before the passing section ended. >Note that he never flashed his lights nor did he ever attempt a >passing maneuver. >Should I have pulled over to let him pass, even though he never >"asked"? Best thing to do is pull over and fill the tank, eat, etc. Or punch it, get to 100mph, and put a half mile between you and him. > >I drove the section of CA-166, from I-5 to US-101 Sunday (7/26) > >morning. During nearly 60 miles of the drive I had an intermittent [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Best thing to do is pull over and fill the tank, eat, etc. > Or punch it, get to 100mph, and put a half mile between you and him. This section is reasonably well patrolled by CHP and Sheriff (often with radar), so I wasn't willing to blast ahead at a significantly higher speed. There are essentially no gas stations or convenience stores within the 70 miles east of US-101; actually, there is one gas station that I've never seen open and one local market in the town of New Cuyama, but otherwise there is nothing in that entire stretch. And there was no other westbound traffic that morning; I never caught up to any other vehicle, nor did any other vehicle catch up to the Yukon. By the way, we both headed north on US-101; he passed me within the first half mile, but exited the freeway 2 miles later. I guess it was important that he risk a 75 MPH ticket to arrive at his exit 20 seconds earlier. On Jul 27, 10:27 pm, larry_scholnick <larry_scholn...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Should I have pulled over to let him pass, even though he never > "asked"? Erratic driver to the front is better than to the rear. ----- - gpsman > Erratic driver to the front is better than to the rear. Dumbest thing I've heard all day. A bad driver in front of you can screw you in any number of sudden ways. But behind you the worst they can do is run into you, in which case the accident will be their fault 100% of the time. >>Erratic driver to the front is better than to the rear. >Dumbest thing I've heard all day. A bad driver in front of you can >screw you in any number of sudden ways. But behind you the worst they >can do is run into you, in which case the accident will be their fault >100% of the time. Well put. -- Cameron Kaiser * ckaiser@floodgap.com * posting with a Commodore 128 personal page: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ ** Computer Workshops: games, productivity software and more for C64/128! ** ** http://www.armory.com/%7Espectre/cwi/ ** On Jul 28, 6:02 pm, kilt...@yahoo.com wrote: > > Erratic driver to the front is better than to the rear. > > Dumbest thing I've heard all day. A bad driver in front of you can > screw you in any number of sudden ways. Seems unlikely while maintaining adequate following distance. > But behind you the worst they > can do is run into you, in which case the accident will be their fault > 100% of the time. And if I'm 100% dead, or 50% paralyzed? I'll put my money on my ability to avoid crashing into an erratic driver, every time. ----- - gpsman > On Jul 28, 6:02 pm, kilt...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > - gpsman I'll agree with gpsman; I would've rather just pulled over, wait about 15 seconds, and then drive back onto the roadway. 20 seconds of space or so would give you more than plenty of time to react, and then some. The goal of driving should be to avoid getting into an accident in the first place, and that includes the rear end of your vehicle, too. > > On Jul 28, 6:02 pm, kilt...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > - Show quoted text - If i see a shitty driver, I may drop some distance and follow, even if itmeans that I'll be a little later than otherwise. I do this in ase there is an accidnet, then I will be / can be a witness, or staop and say,Sorry, I didn't see a thig." if it wasn't the looney who ered. This is all heory. It's never happened yet, buu...smeday. > On Jul 28, 6:02 pm, kilt...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > Dumbest thing I've heard all day. A bad driver in front of you can > > screw you in any number of sudden ways. > > Seems unlikely while maintaining adequate following distance. You assume I by "screw" I meant "cause an accident". While that's a part of it, the much more common scenario is simply that being behind an erratic driver forces you to constantly (and often rapidly) manipulate your speed along with the erratic driver to maintain whatever distance you're comfortable with. If that's the way you prefer to drive, so be it. I'll just pass the erratic driver and be done with her. > I'll just pass the erratic driver and be done with her. Speaking of erratic drivers: http://tetraethyllead.blip.tv/ >> I'll just pass the erratic driver and be done with her. > > Speaking of erratic drivers: wrong link.... http://blip.tv/file/2417038 > > Speaking of erratic drivers: > > wrong link.... > > http://blip.tv/file/2417038 See if you can guess what this moron will do next... http://tetraethyllead.blip.tv/file/456328/ ----- - gpsman On Jul 29, 7:40 pm, kilt...@yahoo.com wrote: > > On Jul 28, 6:02 pm, kilt...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You assume I by "screw" I meant "cause an accident". No, I can read. You implied something other than an "accident" by later citing "accident" and dismissing it as an insignificant consequence if it was not your fault. > While that's a > part of it, the much more common scenario is simply that being behind > an erratic driver forces you to constantly (and often rapidly) > manipulate your speed along with the erratic driver to maintain > whatever distance you're comfortable with. Try to imagine not tailgating, if you can. Think "30 seconds" following distance. An erratic driver may be involved in a head-on collision, with just 10 or 15 seconds you still have plenty of time to react. What is my following distance here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJ9DLSnbFTs > If that's the way you > prefer to drive, so be it. I'll just pass the erratic driver and be > done with her. Lol. What's to prevent "her" from matching your velocity... and/or catching you at the next TCD... and/or you being pulled over by a cop and sitting on the shoulder waiting for "her" to catch up? If you must share the road with an erratic and/or tailgating driver their preferable position is to the front. ----- - gpsman > What is my following distance here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJ9DLSnbFTs Haha, now it all becomes clear -- you're one of these idiots that goes out of their way to maintain a ridiculously long following distance in traffic under the guise of "keeping traffic moving by maintaining a constant speed", even if that speed is 5mph. This false logic is apparently enough to keep you from ever asking yourself "What if everyone did what I'm doing?", for which the inevitable answer is "Hmm, traffic would be backed up 10x the distance that it is now. Well shucks, that's no good at all!" So proud are you of your supergenius driving technique that you go through the effort to record yourself so that you can post the video to the Internet. And clearly the Internet has been taken by storm -- all of 75 people have watched the video since October of 2008. That's some fine work there. :-) On Jul 30, 10:39 am, kilt...@yahoo.com wrote: > > What is my following distance here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJ9DLSnbFTs > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > "Hmm, traffic would be backed up 10x the distance that it is now. > Well shucks, that's no good at all!" <snip> Speaking of false logic... Just what does driving a constant speed have to do with the following distance? Answer "not a thing". Best for traffic is if everyone maintains a constants speed. Please define what you call a 'rediculously long following distance". I agree the "30 second" or even "15 second" is bordering on the asinine. 3 seconds is sufficient but the gurus now advise 4 seconds. I assume that is to allow for all the morons texting and talking on CP. Harry K > On Jul 30, 10:39 am, kilt...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Harry K Ooops. forgot to add No, I do NOT mean everyone drive at the _same_ speed. That is why there are multi lane highways. I also do not mean 'set your speed and never vary it'. It should change when needed, such as passing, changing lanes, etc. Harry K > Speaking of false logic... Just what does driving a constant speed > have to do with the following distance? Answer "not a thing". Best > for traffic is if everyone maintains a constants speed. Did you watch his video? My whole response is about his video. (If you tried watching and fell asleep 5 seconds in, I understand. :-) He intentionally wastes road space by putting a gigantic cushion in between him and the vehicle he's following so that he can maintain as constant of a speed as possible and not ever have to stop. > Please define what you call a 'rediculously long following distance". > I agree the "30 second" or even "15 second" is bordering on the > asinine. Then it sounds like we're on the same page. On Jul 30, 2:55 pm, kilt...@yahoo.com wrote: > My whole response is about his video. He > intentionally wastes road space by putting a gigantic cushion in > between him and the vehicle he's following so that he can maintain as > constant of a speed as possible and not ever have to stop. How can the space be "wasted" when it is available to anyone who wants it? When traffic speed increases, any "delay" to rearward drivers evaporates. > > Please define what you call a 'rediculously long following distance". > > I agree the "30 second" or even "15 second" is bordering on the > > asinine. > > Then it sounds like we're on the same page. Yeah, obviously a relatively blank one, maybe some scribbling. ----- - gpsman On Jul 30, 11:55 am, kilt...@yahoo.com wrote: > > Speaking of false logic... Just what does driving a constant speed > > have to do with the following distance? Answer "not a thing". Best [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Then it sounds like we're on the same page. No, I didnt' watch the video for two reasones. I am on dial-up and his reference to 30 second and 15 second was way more than sufficient to know what he was doing. Harry K > Speaking of false logic... Just what does driving a constant speed > have to do with the following distance? Answer "not a thing". Depends on the speed variance of the vehicle being followed. > I agree the "30 second" or even "15 second" is bordering on the > asinine. Why...?! > 3 seconds is sufficient but the gurus now advise 4 seconds. I assume > that is to allow for all the morons texting and talking on CP. It provides 2 seconds between vehicles for lane changers (not that many would consider using it). ----- - gpsman > > Speaking of false logic... Just what does driving a constant speed > > have to do with the following distance? Answer "not a thing". [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > - gpsman 3 seconds also provides merge distance. Or do you not recognize the ability of the guy following to lift his foot (after the merge)? Granted that I do not like people crowding in that close but in heavy traffic it is necessary. Harry K > > > 3 seconds is sufficient but the gurus now advise 4 seconds. I assume > > > that is to allow for all the morons texting and talking on CP. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 3 seconds also provides merge distance. Or do you not recognize the > ability of the guy following to lift his foot (after the merge)? You missed the point of maintaining 2 seconds between vehicles. (They have the ability, but many lack the inclination.) Since separation is perhaps the key factor of avoiding crashes, more following distance is better. > Granted that I do not like people crowding in that close but in heavy > traffic it is necessary. Not in front of me. That's one reason I maintain a large following distance. If you want to change lanes or merge onto the highway to my front you get more than enough room to do so without getting near me. (The video shows me in the R lane in bumper to bumper traffic flowing at about 15-20mph. While others start and stop and/or accelerate and brake I manage to maintain a more or less constant velocity while maintaining a variable but obviously more than adequate following distance, and actually gain ground on traffic in the next lane.) ----- - gpsman On Jul 30, 1:39 pm, kilt...@yahoo.com wrote: > > What is my following distance here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJ9DLSnbFTs > > Haha, now it all becomes clear -- you're one of these idiots that goes > out of their way to maintain a ridiculously long following distance in > traffic under the guise of "keeping traffic moving by maintaining a > constant speed", even if that speed is 5mph. I maintain a large following distance because it's more safe, and it precludes having to immediately react to traffic to my front. And while others are starting and stopping (or accelerating and braking), I get to keep rolling at more or less a constant speed. That saves brakes and fuel, and is far less demanding. > This false logic is You can conclude practically anything based on a false assumption. > apparently enough to keep you from ever asking yourself "What if > everyone did what I'm doing?", for which the inevitable answer is > "Hmm, traffic would be backed up 10x the distance that it is now. Not if everybody observed the speed/limits. Traffic gets backed up in most instances because people drive too fast. The faster/est drivers blame slower traffic and failure to KRETP but if they observed the maximum speed limit congestion would be greatly reduced (but nobody would ever get anywhere, right?). But, if "most" drivers just maintained 4 seconds following distance faster traffic could, very if not most often, easily and "safely" weave between us and have 2 seconds cushion on each end. > If everybody slowed > Well shucks, that's no good at all!" If everybody operated at the speed limits or thereabouts and maintained a minimum 4 seconds following distance "everybody" would quite possibly arrive in less time, especially considering the distinct possibility of far fewer crashes. > So proud are you of your supergenius driving technique that you go > through the effort to record yourself so that you can post the video > to the Internet. And clearly the Internet has been taken by storm -- > all of 75 people have watched the video since October of 2008. That's > some fine work there. :-) It was posted as an example of how a large following distance can be maintained even in dense traffic (after my assertion that I could do so under any traffic conditions was questioned here). And it was uploaded and posted on a previous occasion, then deleted and replaced with the current higher resolution version. But, no, it's not and is not likely to become wildly popular. I think it had 400-something views. But I don't base validity of an argument or my personal sense of value on popularity. And, of course, my assertion that I could do it is most likely still considered false or a fluke by the majority of r.a.d. idiots. Erratic drivers are best kept to one's front. ----- - gpsman > Not if everybody observed the speed/limits. Traffic gets backed up in > most instances because people drive too fast. The faster/est drivers [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > quite possibly arrive in less time, especially considering the > distinct possibility of far fewer crashes. I'd like to debate you about this "most instances." How about 3:00PM on the 405. > > So proud are you of your supergenius driving technique that you go > > through the effort to record yourself so that you can post the video [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Erratic drivers are best kept to one's front. I think I agree with that, but I still find it more practical to put as much distance as possible between me and the bad driver. I was taught this by a wise old Ferrari driver. I'm wondering if at least some LEO's would give up a speeding ticket in the hand for a DUI in the bush, or something like that, if you can communicate it quickly. Well, I guess I'm dreaming. jg -- @home.com is bogus. Try to outrun a trolley on a bicycle: http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/jul/28/1m28trolley215341-4-year-old- girl-killed-when-trol/ > > Traffic gets backed up in > > most instances because people drive too fast. The faster/est drivers [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I'd like to debate you about this "most instances." How about 3:00PM > on the 405. Most instances aren't on the 405 and those on the 405 aren't mostly at 3pm, but I think I get your drift. "Congestion" is defined as too many vehicles in too little space. Besides times when demand is highest congestion can begin to form in "free-flow" phase as traffic bunches up and becomes susceptible to braking waves. Traffic approaching these conditions of light congestion turn it into heavy congestion when, if they instead lowered their velocity and maintained greater following distances the light congestion would have an opportunity to work itself out. This is the premise behind doomed to failure variable speed limits that intend to ease congestion by slowing the addition of additional vehicles to the "clog". But, since most drivers are idiots they only consider "how fast can I drive and not wreck' which they answer with something like "with my superior skills, up to and including the speed of light if all these morons weren't "in my way". > > Erratic drivers are best kept to one's front. > > I think I agree with that, but I still find it more practical to put > as much distance as possible between me and the bad driver. I was > taught this by a wise old Ferrari driver. Sometimes you can do that, but often traffic is a hindrance. And not everybody drives a Ferrari. All things being more or less equal and you can accelerate to 100, and so can they. Then you've got an erratic driver to your rear at 100. > I'm wondering if at least > some LEO's would give up a speeding ticket in the hand for a DUI in > the bush, or something like that, if you can communicate it quickly. > Well, I guess I'm dreaming. Cops aren't any smarter than the average idiot, but they probably know that if you had put the DUI to the front and maintained adequate following distance they're going to have a hard time presenting a threat to your safety. ----- - gpsman > I maintain a large following distance because it's more safe, and it > precludes having to immediately react to traffic to my front. And > while others are starting and stopping (or accelerating and braking), > I get to keep rolling at more or less a constant speed. I was talking about the 5mph traffic flow in the video. We all know the theory about following distances at higher rates of speed. I'm sure you think your distance of choice is the perfect one. > Not if everybody observed the speed/limits. Traffic gets backed up in > most instances because people drive too fast. The faster/est drivers > blame slower traffic and failure to KRETP but if they observed the > maximum speed limit congestion would be greatly reduced (but nobody > would ever get anywhere, right?). Wow, I didn't realize you were a traffic flow expert. All this time I thought that most highway backups were caused by too many vehicles, accidents, bottlenecks, merges, & tolls, but here you are pointing out that obviously the problem is the 99.5% of drivers who tend to drive faster than the speed limit. Truely englightening! > But, if "most" drivers just maintained 4 seconds following distance > faster traffic could, very if not most often, easily and "safely" > weave between us and have 2 seconds cushion on each end. This one is priceless. As if you wouldn't be complaining in this newsgroup about the senseless "weavers" recklessly cutting everyone's standard 4-second cushion in half because they're in such a big hurry. :-) > It was posted as an example of how a large following distance can be > maintained even in dense traffic (after my assertion that I could do > so under any traffic conditions was questioned here). Bizarre. Of course a stupidly large following distance can always be maintained -- the laws of physics do not preclude it. That doesn't mean you're not thoughtlessly wasting road capacity by doing so. Anywho, that unbelievable video kind of got the thread off-topic. But I see now that our disagreement about the original issue probably stems from different overall driving philosophies (active vs. passive). Although, the "How can the space be 'wasted' when it is available to anyone who wants it?" question in your other post has me thinking you can't possibly be being serious. Oh well. :-) On Jul 30, 7:57 pm, kilt...@yahoo.com wrote: > > I maintain a large following distance because it's more safe, and it > > precludes having to immediately react to traffic to my front. And [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the theory about following distances at higher rates of speed. I'm > sure you think your distance of choice is the perfect one. I don't know about perfect, but it's certainly superior to others in the video. > > Not if everybody observed the speed/limits. Traffic gets backed up in > > most instances because people drive too fast. The faster/est drivers [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Wow, I didn't realize you were a traffic flow expert. I wouldn't say expert, but I'm certainly more knowledgeable than most. > All this time I > thought that most highway backups were caused by too many vehicles, > accidents, bottlenecks, merges, & tolls, but here you are pointing out > that obviously the problem is the 99.5% of drivers who tend to drive > faster than the speed limit. Truely englightening! I'm available to answer all your driving and traffic questions. > > But, if "most" drivers just maintained 4 seconds following distance > > faster traffic could, very if not most often, easily and "safely" [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > standard 4-second cushion in half because they're in such a big > hurry. :-) Because I don't complain about it now? > > It was posted as an example of how a large following distance can be > > maintained even in dense traffic (after my assertion that I could do > > so under any traffic conditions was questioned here). > > Bizarre. Of course a stupidly large following distance can always be > maintained -- the laws of physics do not preclude it. No it can not, and yes they do. There's nothing to prevent anyone who wants to from changing lanes too close to my front. > That doesn't > mean you're not thoughtlessly wasting road capacity by doing so. Wasting road capacity, how, exactly? > Although, the "How can the space be 'wasted' when it is > available to anyone who wants it?" question in your other post has me > thinking you can't possibly be being serious. Oh well. :-) Of course I'm serious. That space was available for traffic to enter the highway just a little further down the road, and it was available for those wishing to change lanes to exit the highway a little further down the road. "Space" smooths things out for drivers other than myself, too, like those behind me. ----- - gpsman On Jul 28, 3:02 pm, kilt...@yahoo.com wrote: > > Erratic driver to the front is better than to the rear. > > Dumbest thing I've heard all day. A bad driver in front of you can > screw you in any number of sudden ways. But behind you the worst they > can do is run into you, in which case the accident will be their fault > 100% of the time. As I maintain a minimum of 3 second spacing, I don't see how one ahead can screw me. It is also a whale of a lot easier to keep an eye on one ahead of me than behind. Harry K > On Jul 28, 3:02 pm, kilt...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > can screw me. It is also a whale of a lot easier to keep an eye on > one ahead of me than behind. Imagined masters of driving seem to often have difficulty imagining a vehicle to their front they aren't tailgating. ----- - gpsman >I drove the section of CA-166, from I-5 to US-101 Sunday (7/26) > morning. During nearly 60 miles of the drive I had an intermittent [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Should I have pulled over to let him pass, even though he never > "asked"? Was he topping the steering wheel with one hand?. Thats usually a sign of a nut in a hurry. Usually done by young males age 26 to 35 or so in pickup trucks vans and suv,s. ------------- Lic driver circa 1968 > I drove the section of CA-166, from I-5 to US-101 Sunday (7/26) > morning. During nearly 60 miles of the drive I had an intermittent [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Should I have pulled over to let him pass, even though he never > "asked"? Why? He seemed to be doing the 'constant pedal pressure' thing mentioned in the subject line, which is how you maximize mileage. It requires a lot of discipline, though, especially in hilly areas.  SignatureCheers, Bev ***************************************************************** "...and then I'll become a veterinarian because I love children." -- Julie Brown > > I drove the section of CA-166, from I-5 to US-101 Sunday (7/26) > > morning. During nearly 60 miles of the drive I had an intermittent [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > - Show quoted text - That is fine for the person doing it. It is extremely annoying for people following them though. It also increases congestion due to the 'bunch up - spread out' effect. That type of driving should only be done where traffice is light and/or passing opportunities are many. Harry K Yeah, those types get on my nerves too, and I'm never sure what to do with them either. Where driving takes some skill, they can't even keep up; then when it's easy, they act as though they want to pass, but haven't got the ponies and/or stones to actually do it. Lather, rinse, repeat. I'm thinking that he or she was too ignorant and oblivious to take offense at your way of handling it (which was not all that offensive anyway). Besides, someone more conscious of driving manners would have either backed off and followed at a safe distance, or else "asked" to pass (or, for that matter, would have been in position to just step out and overtake when the opportunity presented itself). --Joe |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.