 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / March 2008Lane Courtesy
http://www.motorists.org/lanecourtesy/home/but-im-driving-the-speed-limit/ But I'm Driving The Speed Limit If lane courtesy is such a great concept and a win-win situation for all highway users, why do some drivers refuse to embrace it? Failure to yield the left lane or taking actions that make it easy for others to merge into traffic are often caused by nothing more sinister than simple inattention and distraction. Excuses for deliberately refusing to accommodate other drivers include: "The left lane is smoother. If I stay in the left lane the faster traffic in the right lane doesn't have to pull out to pass me. I can see better in the left lane." And the all time champion, "I'm driving the speed limit and I shouldn't have to move over for law breakers." Targeted education and enforcement will effectively address the unconscious drivers, "smooth laners" and visually impaired. The "it's my road and as long as I drive the speed limit I can camp in the left lane" mentality is a greater challenge. From a very practical perspective, speed limits do not represent the actual travel speeds on most highways. These limits are typically based on arbitrary political numbers that have no relationship to valid engineering based standards. As a result, a motorist doing "the speed limit" in the left lane may be in serious conflict with the prevailing traffic. This results in abrupt lane changes, erratic speed changes, and no small amount of hostility. This is a classic example of how a poorly conceived public policy (i.e. arbitrary speed limits) results in multiple unintended negative consequences. Setting aside this conundrum, there are additional reasons to always yield the left lane to faster traffic. Something as simple as speedometer error can result in a five-MPH or greater difference in vehicle speeds, although both read the same speed. The motorist seeking to pass in the left lane may be responding to a family or health emergency. Another possibility is that faster left lane vehicles are preceding an emergency vehicle and are seeking an opportunity to merge right. The bottom line is that no valid purpose is served by blocking the left lane when other vehicles wish to pass. Let the police sort out the reckless and irresponsible drivers.  Signature"Dave's not here, man!" - Tommy Chong > http://www.motorists.org/lanecourtesy/home/but-im-driving-the-speed-l... > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > purpose is served by blocking the left lane when other vehicles wish > to pass. What about as an anti-JLEDI practice...? ----- - gpsman >http://www.motorists.org/lanecourtesy/home/but-im-driving-the-speed-limit/ > >But I'm Driving The Speed Limit > >If lane courtesy is such a great concept and a win-win situation for >all highway users, why do some drivers refuse to embrace it? See the .sig for answer.... >Failure to yield the left lane or taking actions that make it easy for If they would just KRETP to begin with, they wouldn't need to, "yield the left lane." >others to merge into traffic are often caused by nothing more sinister >than simple inattention and distraction. Excuses for deliberately >refusing to accommodate other drivers include: "The left lane is >smoother. Really? I hadn't noticed that. >If I stay in the left lane the faster traffic in the right >lane doesn't have to pull out to pass me. <snort beer> > I can see better in the left lane. Yeah, right.... >" And the all time champion, "I'm driving the speed limit and I >shouldn't have to move over for law breakers." They must have interview our very own SFB for that steamer... >Targeted education and enforcement will effectively address the >unconscious drivers, "smooth laners" and visually impaired. The "it's >my road and as long as I drive the speed limit I can camp in the left >lane" mentality is a greater challenge. Deal with the, "its my road...." types with a Chinese style execution: bullet to the back of the head and a bill for the bullet sent to the next of kin. >From a very practical perspective, speed limits do not represent the >actual travel speeds on most highways. These limits are typically [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >to pass. Let the police sort out the reckless and irresponsible >drivers. All they have to do is look for the slow f.cks in the left lane. -- "You can't legislate away people's right to be a.sholes!" --Wesley Snipes as Simon Phoenix in "Demolition Man." > http://www.motorists.org/lanecourtesy/home/but-im-driving-the-speed-l... > > But I'm Driving The Speed Limit > > From a very practical perspective, speed limits do not represent the > actual travel speeds on most highways. Oh, this ought to be good... the odor of horseshit is in the air. > These limits are typically > based on arbitrary political numbers that have no relationship to > valid engineering based standards. Now that's funny! Or it would be, if it weren't so sad... Much of US highways seem to me to be adequately "engineered" to sustain speeds well in excess of 100, maybe even 200mph. Maybe it's just me, but to imply speed limits should be set according to only the "engineering" limits of the road design and without regard to the typical human limitations couldn't be more imbecilic. > As a result, a motorist doing "the > speed limit" in the left lane may be in serious conflict with the > prevailing traffic. I guess that's one way of looking at it. "From a very practical perspective" it seems more accurate to describe prevailing traffic as in conflict with the slower traffic operating within the confines of the speed limits. > This results in abrupt lane changes, erratic speed > changes, and no small amount of hostility. Lol. Uh huh, and why is that? Because the drivers who believe they are competent to operate at higher velocity can't f.cking wait to demonstrate by their abrupt lane and erratic speed changes that their driving judgment isn't even adequate to operate safely at the lower velocity they may be momentarily forced to adopt? Maybe it's just me, but a driver who makes abrupt lane and speed changes isn't among the most competent on the road. Multiply that if they do so as angry reactions to the behavior of other drivers. > This is a classic example of how a poorly conceived public policy > (i.e. arbitrary speed limits) results in multiple unintended negative > consequences. uhhhhh... seems to me more like classic examples of how poor driving skills and judgment may result in multiple negative consequences, all easily foreseeable and avoidable by better drivers. > Setting aside this conundrum, there are additional > reasons to always yield the left lane to faster traffic. I certainly hope so! > Something as simple as speedometer error can result in a five-MPH or > greater difference in vehicle speeds, although both read the same > speed. So... yielding the L lane synchronizes or adjusts speedometers...?! That's your top "reason"...?! > The motorist seeking to pass in the left lane may be responding > to a family or health emergency. Lol. WTF is a "family" emergency?! Could you be a little more vague on what constitutes a "health" emergency? If they're speeding for a "health" emergency, shouldn't they call an ambulance instead? If a "health" emergency includes being about to sh.t your pants, wouldn't that be somewhat of a distraction, and a lower velocity more appropriate? > Another possibility is that faster > left lane vehicles are preceding an emergency vehicle and are seeking > an opportunity to merge right. <tee hee> If there's no opportunity to merge right, the blame lies upon the driver to the front. Nice one. > The bottom line is that no valid > purpose is served by blocking the left lane when other vehicles wish > to pass. Well, that depends on what is meant by "blocking". I suspect it means KRETP. If so, and you're stymied by a LLB who isn't passing, then you aren't passing either. Move right, motherf..ker, and get down the road and worry about your own driving. If they're passing, maintain an adequate following distance until he's finished. Or, cite some traffic code that specifies a driver must pass in accordance with the wishes of the driver to their rear. > Let the police sort out the reckless and irresponsible > drivers. Yes, let's. ----- - gpsman > >http://www.motorists.org/lanecourtesy/home/but-im-driving-the-speed-l... > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Oh, this ought to be good... the odor of horseshit is in the air. It started as soon as you put lubricant-wet fingers to keyboard > > These limits are typically > > based on arbitrary political numbers that have no relationship to > > valid engineering based standards. > > Now that's funny! Or it would be, if it weren't so sad... I agree. Why set limits according to anything other than what reduces the number of collisions? > Much of US highways seem to me to be adequately "engineered" to > sustain speeds well in excess of 100, maybe even 200mph. "Seems to me"? Are you an engineer? No? How can you possibly make any kind of statement as to what any section of road is designed for? East Summit eastbound Snoqualmie Pass? 100mph? Even in my German sport sedan, 75mph on 245 rubber is close to the limit on a dry day, due to the pavement and road design. Also, the article wasn't merely talking about road engineering. > > As a result, a motorist doing "the > > speed limit" in the left lane may be in serious conflict with the > > prevailing traffic. > > I guess that's one way of looking at it. For reducing the frequency of collisions, what other way is there of looking at it? > "From a very practical > perspective" it seems more accurate to describe prevailing traffic as > in conflict with the slower traffic operating within the confines of > the speed limits. One person doing the speed limit while the rest of traffic goes SL+15 - you define the single as the norm, and the rest as outliers? Nice reasoning. > > This results in abrupt lane changes, erratic speed > > changes, and no small amount of hostility. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > adequate to operate safely at the lower velocity they may be > momentarily forced to adopt? Conclusion from facts not in evidence. > Maybe it's just me, but a driver who makes abrupt lane and speed > changes isn't among the most competent on the road. And the road is filled with these folks. Why not make life easier on EVERYONE by practicing KRETP? That way, impatient, bad drivers can go crash somewhere else. > > This is a classic example of how a poorly conceived public policy > > (i.e. arbitrary speed limits) results in multiple unintended negative [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > skills and judgment may result in multiple negative consequences, all > easily foreseeable and avoidable by better drivers. Going the speed limit <> "better driving". Legal <> "better". > > Something as simple as speedometer error can result in a five-MPH or > > greater difference in vehicle speeds, although both read the same > > speed. > > So... yielding the L lane synchronizes or adjusts speedometers...?! If that's the conclusion you reached from that statement, you are an idiot. > > The motorist seeking to pass in the left lane may be responding > > to a family or health emergency. > > Lol. WTF is a "family" emergency?! Could you be a little more vague > on what constitutes a "health" emergency? How about a young daughter bleeding profusely from a scalp wound? Not really a health emergeny, but urgent, nonetheless. > If they're speeding for a "health" emergency, shouldn't they call an > ambulance instead? Round these parts, an ambulance will take longer to get to the house than it would be for me to pile folks in the car and drive them to the ER. In the case of some members of the family, like those allergic to insect stings, 10 minutes is the difference between life and death. So, to make sure I don't exceed some arbitrary limit, I should let my relative die instead? Seriously, this is what you're advocating. > > Another possibility is that faster > > left lane vehicles are preceding an emergency vehicle and are seeking > > an opportunity to merge right. > > <tee hee> If there's no opportunity to merge right, the blame lies > upon the driver to the front. It is if the driver is BREAKING THE LAW by 1.) impeding traffic (look it up in the RCW, doofus) and 2.) not KREPT (another RCW look-up for you, sh.t-for-brains.) > > The bottom line is that no valid > > purpose is served by blocking the left lane when other vehicles wish > > to pass. > > Well, that depends on what is meant by "blocking". Sitting there pacing traffic to the right, or going slower than traffic to the right. > > Let the police sort out the reckless and irresponsible > > drivers. > > Yes, let's. Or, instead, let's focus on the speed limit to the exclusion of the other traffic laws. E.P. > > >http://www.motorists.org/lanecourtesy/home/but-im-driving-the-speed-l... > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > It started as soon as you put lubricant-wet fingers to keyboard As much as I enjoy a witty riposte even if I am the target, this fall short of your usual efforts. > > > These limits are typically > > > based on arbitrary political numbers that have no relationship to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I agree. Why set limits according to anything other than what reduces > the number of collisions? Because zero as a speed limit is not only impractical, it's unreasonable. > > Much of US highways seem to me to be adequately "engineered" to > > sustain speeds well in excess of 100, maybe even 200mph. > > "Seems to me"? Are you an engineer? No? How can you possibly make > any kind of statement as to what any section of road is designed for? Because I've driven more miles of them at 100mph+ than most...? > East Summit eastbound Snoqualmie Pass? 100mph? Even in my German > sport sedan, 75mph on 245 rubber is close to the limit on a dry day, > due to the pavement and road design. "Much" ≠ "All". We're venturing into territory where your reading comprehension difficulties are sure to lead you to the conclusion that I'm stupid, again. > Also, the article wasn't merely talking about road engineering. Thanks, Cap'n Obvious. > > > As a result, a motorist doing "the > > > speed limit" in the left lane may be in serious conflict with the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > For reducing the frequency of collisions, what other way is there of > looking at it? Do you have some evidence that operating at the speed limit increases the frequency of collisions? > > "From a very practical > > perspective" it seems more accurate to describe prevailing traffic as [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > One person doing the speed limit while the rest of traffic goes SL+15 > - you define the single as the norm, and the rest as outliers? One's legal, one isn't. What is the norm is irrelevant. > > > This results in abrupt lane changes, erratic speed > > > changes, and no small amount of hostility. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Conclusion from facts not in evidence. It's a question, Sparky. > > Maybe it's just me, but a driver who makes abrupt lane and speed > > changes isn't among the most competent on the road. > > And the road is filled with these folks. Why not make life easier on > EVERYONE by practicing KRETP? That way, impatient, bad drivers can go > crash somewhere else. What?! And abandon my anti-JLEDI duty?! Perhaps I could adopt Nate's rationale; it's my duty to prevent those drivers from crashing into someone else, since I'm sure they'd find that an "inconvenience". Seriously, I'm all for KRETP. I'm all against those who believe the ROW is based on velocity, and that they should be the judge of whom is passing fast enough and who isn't. > > > This is a classic example of how a poorly conceived public policy > > > (i.e. arbitrary speed limits) results in multiple unintended negative [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Going the speed limit <> "better driving". Legal <> "better". Conclusion from facts not in evidence. > > > Something as simple as speedometer error can result in a five-MPH or > > > greater difference in vehicle speeds, although both read the same [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > If that's the conclusion you reached from that statement, you are an > idiot. I tend to read what is written. But in the case of the conclusion I assume you reached, it works both ways. > > > The motorist seeking to pass in the left lane may be responding > > > to a family or health emergency. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > How about a young daughter bleeding profusely from a scalp wound? Not > really a health emergeny, but urgent, nonetheless. Why, is the speeder a doctor...? > > If they're speeding for a "health" emergency, shouldn't they call an > > ambulance instead? > > Round these parts, an ambulance will take longer to get to the house > than it would be for me to pile folks in the car and drive them to the > ER. At or about the speed limit. How far is the ER from your house? In the case of a life and death "medical" emergency you're best off applying first aid and waiting for the ambulance. You tend to get through triage a little faster that way. > In the case of some members of the family, like those allergic to > insect stings, 10 minutes is the difference between life and death. > So, to make sure I don't exceed some arbitrary limit, I should let my > relative die instead? No, you (or they) should have a sting kit on hand. > Seriously, this is what you're advocating. Lol. Come on. The OP's post contained the phrase "health" emergency, not "medical", and I have to assume that's because in the case of what most people would consider the difference would best be address by qualified "medical" personnel. > > > Another possibility is that faster > > > left lane vehicles are preceding an emergency vehicle and are seeking [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > it up in the RCW, doofus) and 2.) not KREPT (another RCW look-up for > you, sh.t-for-brains.) Lol. They ain't impeding a move to the right, Sparky. > > > The bottom line is that no valid > > > purpose is served by blocking the left lane when other vehicles wish [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Sitting there pacing traffic to the right, or going slower than > traffic to the right. What about the conditions to the "blocker's" front? One driver's LLB is often just a (better) driver with the same intent but maintaining an adequate following distance. If you're following an LLB, aren't you as guilty as they if someone is behind you? > > > Let the police sort out the reckless and irresponsible > > > drivers. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Or, instead, let's focus on the speed limit to the exclusion of the > other traffic laws. Conclusion from facts not in evidence. ----- - gpsman > > > >http://www.motorists.org/lanecourtesy/home/but-im-driving-the-speed-l... > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > As much as I enjoy a witty riposte even if I am the target, this fall > short of your usual efforts. I think everyone got a smile at the image evoked. Even you. > > > > These limits are typically > > > > based on arbitrary political numbers that have no relationship to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Because zero as a speed limit is not only impractical, it's > unreasonable. Did you see "eliminates" when you should have read "reduces"? Tsk, tsk. Nice try at a straw man, however. > > > Much of US highways seem to me to be adequately "engineered" to > > > sustain speeds well in excess of 100, maybe even 200mph. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Because I've driven more miles of them at 100mph+ than most...? No. You have NO IDEA what any particular section of road will bear, as far as speed limit goes. Since you are NOT an engineering, you cannot predict such things, from first principles. > > East Summit eastbound Snoqualmie Pass? 100mph? Even in my German > > sport sedan, 75mph on 245 rubber is close to the limit on a dry day, > > due to the pavement and road design. > > "Much" ≠ "All". I would suggest that you have no f.cking clue what you are talking about. There are very few stretches of I-90 in WA or ID that could support 100+ mph. Now, in MT, we have a different story. Especially in the middle of MT, where sightlines are very long, and traffic is very light. I would suggest that the places where there should be no limits on speed (///) are few in the west - except across deserts and other non- populated expanses. Even then, the areas of no limits would be restricted by terrain. Of course, I did not say "all", so nice straw man, SFB. > > Also, the article wasn't merely talking about road engineering. > > Thanks, Cap'n Obvious. Since you seem not to grasp it, I had to point it out. My apologies. > > > > As a result, a motorist doing "the > > > > speed limit" in the left lane may be in serious conflict with the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Do you have some evidence that operating at the speed limit increases > the frequency of collisions? Yes. It's been posted in r.a.d numerous times before, so you may search for it at your leisure. > > > "From a very practical > > > perspective" it seems more accurate to describe prevailing traffic as [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > One's legal, one isn't. What is the norm is irrelevant. Unless you are talking about reducing the frequency of collisions. Then the norm is important. > > > > This results in abrupt lane changes, erratic speed > > > > changes, and no small amount of hostility. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > It's a question, Sparky. I was responding to your logical fallacy. A question isn't a question if the answer to the question is assumed within the question. Would you like me to point out the exact logical fallacy, there? :) > > > Maybe it's just me, but a driver who makes abrupt lane and speed > > > changes isn't among the most competent on the road. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > What?! Yes - that's right. KRETP, and skip the red herring. > Seriously, I'm all for KRETP. Bullshit. You are all for being a shithead on Usenet. > > > > This is a classic example of how a poorly conceived public policy > > > > (i.e. arbitrary speed limits) results in multiple unintended negative [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Conclusion from facts not in evidence. Decades of traffic engineering study says you're wrong. > > > > Something as simple as speedometer error can result in a five-MPH or > > > > greater difference in vehicle speeds, although both read the same [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I tend to read what is written. Except in this case, I take it. > But in the case of the conclusion I > assume you reached, it works both ways. I haven't reached a conclusion. See that word? "If"? It actually has meaning... > > > > The motorist seeking to pass in the left lane may be responding > > > > to a family or health emergency. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Why, is the speeder a doctor...? That's nearly the dumbest reply you've ever made. > > > If they're speeding for a "health" emergency, shouldn't they call an > > > ambulance instead? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > At or about the speed limit. How far is the ER from your house? 3 miles. Takes an ambulance approx. 10-15 to get here from time of call. Takes me <10min to get to the ER from here, at SL+10. > In the case of a life and death "medical" emergency you're best off > applying first aid and waiting for the ambulance. You have no f.cking idea what you are talking about. As usual. > > In the case of some members of the family, like those allergic to > > insect stings, 10 minutes is the difference between life and death. > > So, to make sure I don't exceed some arbitrary limit, I should let my > > relative die instead? > > No, you (or they) should have a sting kit on hand. Wow, Eistein - it took you how long to come up with that non sequitur? Sheesh. > > Seriously, this is what you're advocating. > > Lol. Come on. Yeah, come on. I'm talking about real-world consequences of following your inane "advice". You're talking about Boy Scout platitudes of "being prepared". Please. I realize you're just being an a.shole because you can get away with it, but you also are looking just plain silly in the process. Splitting hairs on semantics is not really a way to make your position stronger... > > > > Another possibility is that faster > > > > left lane vehicles are preceding an emergency vehicle and are seeking [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Lol. They ain't impeding a move to the right, Sparky. You're advocating passing on the right? Really? > > > > The bottom line is that no valid > > > > purpose is served by blocking the left lane when other vehicles wish [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > What about the conditions to the "blocker's" front? Now you're arguing that the traffic is heavy, and the person in the left lane is somehow unaware that it is heavy? Is that your position? > If you're following an LLB, aren't you as guilty as they if someone is > behind you? Only id I am completely unaware of traffic conditions. If you are trying to change the subject to include all those folks who have no idea that traffic is heavy, and that there is an infinite blockage in the left lane, then WTF are we discussing? No, you are making up a scenario that suits your argument, rather than a real one - the one we are actually discussing. > > > > Let the police sort out the reckless and irresponsible > > > > drivers. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Conclusion from facts not in evidence. I reach that conclusion from what you write. If that's not what you mean to say, you should write something different. E.P. > > > > >http://www.motorists.org/lanecourtesy/home/but-im-driving-the-speed-l... > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > I think everyone got a smile at the image evoked. Even you. I have to admit, I didn't get it. > > > > > These limits are typically > > > > > based on arbitrary political numbers that have no relationship to [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Nice try at a straw man, however. I guess you didn't get it. You didn't specify at which speed speed limit/s would reduce the number of collisions, or where, or to what degree, or what would be an acceptable degree, e.g., "Why set limits to anything other than x mph, for that is the speed at which collisions are reduced x%", after implying you possess that information. > > > > Much of US highways seem to me to be adequately "engineered" to > > > > sustain speeds well in excess of 100, maybe even 200mph. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > as far as speed limit goes.Since you are NOT an engineering, you > cannot predict such things, from first principles. Lol. Find the word "limit" in the sentence: "Much of US highways seem to me to be adequately "engineered" to sustain speeds well in excess of 100, maybe even 200mph." > > > East Summit eastbound Snoqualmie Pass? 100mph? Even in my German > > > sport sedan, 75mph on 245 rubber is close to the limit on a dry day, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > about. There are very few stretches of I-90 in WA or ID that could > support 100+ mph. Are we still talking about "speed" "limits" and could it be you who fails to understand what I wrote about, or are you suggesting that speed limits in ID and WA are already set near the limits of the average vehicle and driver? > Now, in MT, we have a different story. Especially > in the middle of MT, where sightlines are very long, and traffic is > very light. Traffic?! Surely there is a "get'cher G.E.D." course available near you where you could work on your reading comprehension: "Much of US highways seem to me to be adequately "engineered" to sustain speeds well in excess of 100, maybe even 200mph" implies only the design speed and was posted in response to the original premise, "These limits are typically based on arbitrary political numbers that have no relationship to valid engineering based standards". > I would suggest that the places where there should be no limits on > speed (///) are few in the west - except across deserts and other non- > populated expanses. Even then, the areas of no limits would be > restricted by terrain. Lol. Man, when you take a wrong turn, you just keep going. > Of course, I did not say "all", so nice straw man, SFB. Tee-hee. I didn't say or imply you wrote "all", Sparky. > > > Also, the article wasn't merely talking about road engineering. > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Yes. It's been posted in r.a.d numerous times before, so you may > search for it at your leisure. <spit take> Refresh my memory from yours. Did the study cite drivers operating within the speed limits most often colliding with faster drivers, or vice-versa? > > > > "From a very practical > > > > perspective" it seems more accurate to describe prevailing traffic as [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Unless you are talking about reducing the frequency of collisions. > Then the norm is important. So drivers operating within legal bounds are responsible for any lack of reduction in the frequency of collisions...? If you have something stupid to say, why not just say it? > > > > > This results in abrupt lane changes, erratic speed > > > > > changes, and no small amount of hostility. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > if the answer to the question is assumed within the question. Would > you like me to point out the exact logical fallacy, there? :) "The" fallacy, or "my" fallacy? "The" assumption, or "my" assumption? The original premise that faster drivers make "abrupt lane changes, erratic speed changes" when encountering an LLB, and that that is the fault of the LLB, is the NMA's. When I frequently ran 100+ mph I encountered a lot of supposed LLBs and didn't usually even bother to change lanes, much less feel the need to make "abrupt" lane changes, nor approach them at a closing rate where my velocity changes could be described as "erratic". Shirley I couldn't be *that* good a driver...? When I read of such "problems" the first thing that I infer is that those drivers are operating incompetently, if not irresponsibly, and I don't think the phrase "defensive driving" pops into the head of anyone with any sense. > > Seriously, I'm all for KRETP. > > Bullshit. You are all for being a shithead on Usenet. Why a "shithead"? We disagree, and I think you're a moron, obviously (who wouldn't?), but you don't cause me any consternation. > > > > > This is a classic example of how a poorly conceived public policy > > > > > (i.e. arbitrary speed limits) results in multiple unintended negative [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Decades of traffic engineering study says you're wrong. Lol. Yeah, everybody says that, but they rarely seem to cite, and when they do cite they cite a study of late 1950s crash data that has been repeatedly discredited over the succeeding decades, and they ignore everything in that antiquated study that doesn't fit their argument. > > > > > Something as simple as speedometer error can result in a five-MPH or > > > > > greater difference in vehicle speeds, although both read the same [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Except in this case, I take it. Read it again, Sparky, more slower: "Setting aside this conundrum, there are additional reasons to always yield the left lane to faster traffic. Something as simple as speedometer error can result in a five-MPH or greater difference in vehicle speeds, although both read the same speed." > > But in the case of the conclusion I > > assume you reached, it works both ways. > > I haven't reached a conclusion. See that word? "If"? It actually > has meaning... So... you have no alternate conclusion regarding that nonsensical premise, you just know my interpretation is wrong? > > > > > The motorist seeking to pass in the left lane may be responding > > > > > to a family or health emergency. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > That's nearly the dumbest reply you've ever made. Which was the dumbest? > > > > If they're speeding for a "health" emergency, shouldn't they call an > > > > ambulance instead? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 3 miles. Takes an ambulance approx. 10-15 to get here from time of > call. Takes me <10min to get to the ER from here, at SL+10. Well, what is the speed limit, Sparky?! 3 miles at 35mph = 5 minutes 8 seconds. At 70 = 2:34. You seem to have intended to imply "round these parts" an ambulance could be counted on to take quite a long time to arrive, when 10 minutes would allow an average velocity of 18mph over 3 miles. > > In the case of a life and death "medical" emergency you're best off > > applying first aid and waiting for the ambulance. > > You have no f.cking idea what you are talking about. Yeah, I'm just a former fireman, lifeguard and EMT. Loved one has a serious injury, heart attack, needs Heimliched- throw them in the car and drive 'em to the ER? > As usual. Isn't it awful? > > > In the case of some members of the family, like those allergic to > > > insect stings, 10 minutes is the difference between life and death. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Wow, Eistein - it took you how long to come up with that non sequitur? Since I was found to be allergic to "bee" stings and prescribed a sting kit. http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?bee+sting+kit "If you are allergic, always carry a bee sting kit prescribed by your doctor." http://honeybee.tamu.edu/bees_in_society/stings.html > Sheesh. Indeed. > > > Seriously, this is what you're advocating. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You're talking about Boy Scout platitudes of "being prepared". > Please. Lol. Yeah, how stupid of me to suggest the most rapid method of preventing death when "10 minutes is the difference between life and death". f.cking platitudes... why can't I stop? > I realize you're just being an a.shole because you can get away with > it, but you also are looking just plain silly in the process. > Splitting hairs on semantics is not really a way to make your position > stronger... I have to admit I don't get that. To what are you referring? > > > > > Another possibility is that faster > > > > > left lane vehicles are preceding an emergency vehicle and are seeking [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > You're advocating passing on the right? Really? LOL! Where the f.ck did you get "passing", Sparky?! I thought your (the NMA's) driver simply wished to move right to allow an emergency vehicle to pass, to wit: "Another possibility is that faster left lane vehicles are preceding an emergency vehicle and are seeking an opportunity to merge right." . > > > > > The bottom line is that no valid > > > > > purpose is served by blocking the left lane when other vehicles wish [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Now you're arguing that the traffic is heavy, and the person in the > left lane is somehow unaware that it is heavy? Is that your position? It's a simple and direct question about "conditions", Sparky, the rest of that sh.t is all yours. > > If you're following an LLB, aren't you as guilty as they if someone is > > behind you? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > idea that traffic is heavy, and that there is an infinite blockage in > the left lane, then WTF are we discussing? Ya got me. How often do you find yourself completely unaware of traffic conditions, and how do you know you were unaware? Is it something that comes and goes? > No, you are making up a scenario that suits your argument, rather than > a real one - the one we are actually discussing. It seems you are aware of neither. > > > > > Let the police sort out the reckless and irresponsible > > > > > drivers. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I reach that conclusion from what you write. If that's not what you > mean to say, you should write something different. I would never deny that's what you read, but I deny ever writing it, and as far as I can tell it was you who forwarded the premise as your own perception of reality. ----- - gpsman Lane courtesy??? HAHAHA. So you think the law abiding drivers should, out of courtesy, get out of the left lane so you can do 90 mph and endanger everyone else??? You are a psychopath!!! SFB spewed: >Lane courtesy??? HAHAHA. So you think the law abiding drivers should, out >of courtesy, get out of the left lane so you can do 90 mph and endanger >everyone else??? So you think its is OK to linger in the left lane and endanger those of us who use the road properly. Obey the law or get off the road, yo blood guzzling ghoul. > You are a psychopath!!! Hey!!! Hey!!! POA!!!! How many kids did you kill today? -- Speeders & Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS (a.k.a. SFB) admits to being a deadly speeder, psychopath and criminal coddler: "> Have you ever driven a car faster than the legal speed limit? Yes, but never deliberately. In fact i got a speeding ticket about 5 years ago for doing 41 in a 25. I just about kicked the cops teeth in cause i was sure he was lying. No way the SL on this wide open stretch could be 25, i thought." Pride of America (c.k.a. Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend/ laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE/Speeders And Drunk Drivers Are Murderers (SADDAM)), 10/3/2002 Message-ID: <3c1753f7.0210030916.7b6f5dff@posting.google.com> http://tinyurl.com/5u4wg Proof that POA is LBMHB/lbVH/SADDAM: See the following: http://tinyurl.com/ahphj >SFB spewed: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >So you think its is OK to linger in the left lane and endanger those >of us who use the road properly. Ummmm.... DUH! How long have you been reading this newsgroup, anyway? Signature"Dave's not here, man!" - Tommy Chong >>SFB spewed: >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Ummmm.... DUH! Do note that that is phrased as a statement and not a question.... >How long have you been reading this newsgroup, anyway? Too long, apparently. -- "In my paradigm, there is no, 'right side of the bed.'" --necromancer On Mar 14, 10:38 am, necromancer > SFB spewed: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > of us who use the road properly. Obey the law or get off the road, yo > blood guzzling ghoul. As long as i'm doing exactly the speed limit, i have a legal right and an ethical obligation to sit in the left lane and thereby stop you killer speeders!!! SFB spewed: >On Mar 14, 10:38 am, necromancer >> SFB spewed: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >an ethical obligation to sit in the left lane and thereby stop you >killer speeders!!! So, how many kids did you kill today in the neighborhoods, you toe tapper? -- Speeders & Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS (a.k.a. SFB) admits to being a deadly speeder, psychopath and criminal coddler: "> Have you ever driven a car faster than the legal speed limit? Yes, but never deliberately. In fact i got a speeding ticket about 5 years ago for doing 41 in a 25. I just about kicked the cops teeth in cause i was sure he was lying. No way the SL on this wide open stretch could be 25, i thought." Pride of America (c.k.a. Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend/ laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE/Speeders And Drunk Drivers Are Murderers (SADDAM)), 10/3/2002 Message-ID: <3c1753f7.0210030916.7b6f5dff@posting.google.com> http://tinyurl.com/5u4wg Proof that POA is LBMHB/lbVH/SADDAM: See the following: http://tinyurl.com/ahphj On Mar 14, 9:38 am, necromancer > So you think its is OK to linger in the left lane and endanger those > of us who use the road properly. Obey the law or get off the road, yo > blood guzzling ghoul. My sentiments exactly! Speeders should get off the road too. On Mar 14, 8:48 am, Aunt Judy (AKA Pride of Diarrhea, AKA "Saddam") <http://tinyurl.com/65nqz> wrote: wrote: > Lane courtesy??? Indeed, that which you abhor: lane courtesy. > HAHAHA. So you think the law abiding drivers should, out > of courtesy, get out of the left lane If they're in the left lane and not currently passing anybody or preparing for a left turn, they're not law abiding drivers. -- ~/Garth "I am patient with stupidity but not with those who are proud of it." - Edith Sitwell (Ventis secundis, tene cursum.) >On Mar 14, 8:48 am, Aunt Judy (AKA Pride of Diarrhea, AKA "Saddam") ><http://tinyurl.com/65nqz> wrote: wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >If they're in the left lane and not currently passing anybody or >preparing for a left turn, they're not law abiding drivers. Indeed. If anything, they are making it more dangerous for those of us who obey the law and use the road properly. But I would expect no better from someone like Aunt Judy who drives around on exposed cords.... -- S&DDAM admits to putting others in danger with its beater (gramatical errors left as is): "Foot pumps are a joke. I had one once and since the piston only moves like 2 inches it took 50 pumps to raise the pressure by one psi. Go with the hand pumps where the piston moves around 15 inches. One of my tires has exposed cords and i have to pump it up every week. " --Speeders & Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS, 3/6/08 Ref: http://tinyurl.com/yvrmhl Msg ID: Xns9A59DDA463296riemann1850yahoocom@216.168.3.70 > http://www.motorists.org/lanecourtesy/home/but-im-driving-the-speed-l... > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > "Dave's not here, man!" > - Tommy Chong ____________ It's true - most cars of this millennium simply do not *feel* as fast as the speed indicated on the speedo. Stiffer construction, better tires, better engineered suspensions(more SAI and/or caster & camber) contribute to a better straight ahead ride and steering feel, even in cars <$15,000. The speed limits need to reflect these advances. -CC On Mar 18, 2:08 pm, ChrisCoaster <ckozi...@snet.net> wrote:> > It's true - most cars of this millennium simply do not *feel* as fast > as the speed indicated on the speedo. Stiffer construction, better [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The speed limits need to reflect these advances. Except most often it's not the limitations of the tool, it's the operator, and they're as dumb as ever, if not dumber. ----- - gpsman |
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
|
©2008 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.