 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / May 2008Driver ticketed while trying to avoid a MFFY driver
The location: Northbound I-405 in West Los Angeles approaching Exit 55 A (CA-2/Santa Monica Blvd). The road configuration: 5 northbound through lanes plus a 6th lane that is Exit Only. The #5 lane is an option lane (straight or exit). The traffic situation: Stop and Go, mostly Stop. As usual, a MFFY driver who wants to continue north on I-405 takes the #6 lane until just before the exit, and tries to squeeze into the #5 lane. In the absence of an enabler, the MFFY stops, blocking the Exit Only lane. The next driver in the #6 lane, who is actually using the Exit Only lane to exit the freeway, gets tired of waiting behind our MFFY driver, and pulls around him onto the shoulder, and then back into the #6 lane. As luck would have it (bad luck that is), a CHP officer sees this maneuver and pulls this guy over for passing on the shoulder. The officer did not seem to consider the actions of the MFFY (blocking a lane; failing to exit, in violation of the Right Lane Must Exit sign) worthy of a citation. > As luck would have it (bad luck that is), a CHP officer sees this > maneuver and pulls this guy over for passing on the shoulder. The > officer did not seem to consider the actions of the MFFY (blocking a > lane; failing to exit, in violation of the Right Lane Must Exit sign) > worthy of a citation. You have to understand that the cops job is *NOT* to make traffic smoother, better, or anything of the sort. He will not do anything about the real problem sources on the road, that's not his job. His job is to bring in the cash amung other things for the government he works for. He has numbers that he must make if he wants to get a decent raise or get a promotion. The MFFY driver won't let him make his numbers, exit only signs being in green or yellow don't have ticketable weight to them. The MFFY drivers need to exist in large numbers so the police can be justified in various crackdowns and enforcement activities. Knowing the cop's job goals, it's obvious who he is going to pull over. > The location: Northbound I-405 in West Los Angeles approaching Exit 55 > A (CA-2/Santa Monica Blvd). [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > MFFY driver, and pulls around him onto the shoulder, and then back > into the #6 lane. Passing on the shoulder seems to be required, as the regular lane is blocked. If the shoulder was available, I'm not sure why that would be a violation. I passed on the shoulder several times last month, while avoiding Sloths that failed to yield. I can't stop in the lane and hope that the Sloth speeds up before I get hit. >> The location: Northbound I-405 in West Los Angeles approaching Exit 55 >> A (CA-2/Santa Monica Blvd). [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >blocked. If the shoulder was available, I'm not sure why that would be >a violation. CVC 21755 explicitly prohibits it, that's why: The driver of a motor vehicle may overtake and pass another vehicle upon the right only under conditions permitting such movement in safety. In no event shall such movement be made by driving off the paved or main-traveled portion of the roadway.  SignatureProud to be a wreckless driver. >>> As usual, a MFFY driver who wants to continue north on I-405 takes the >>> #6 lane until just before the exit, and tries to squeeze into the #5 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>> MFFY driver, and pulls around him onto the shoulder, and then back >>> into the #6 lane. > In no event shall such movement be made by driving off the > paved or main-traveled portion of the roadway. The problem is that there is a stopped vehicle in the lane, when no stopping is necessary. Drivers should use the shoulder to pass, as if there was a huge pothole in the lane. It's not my fault that an MFFY is deliberately blocking the lane, and I won't sit there and wait because that can be dangerous and it wastes my time and petrol unnecessarily. >The problem is that there is a stopped vehicle in the lane, when no >stopping is necessary. Drivers should use the shoulder to pass, as if >there was a huge pothole in the lane. It's not my fault that an MFFY is >deliberately blocking the lane, and I won't sit there and wait because >that can be dangerous and it wastes my time and petrol unnecessarily. The CVC appears to make it unlawful to use the shoulder to pass either a stopped car or a huge pothole. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. On May 4, 7:25 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: > In article <686taqF1l6ko...@mid.individual.net>, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > The CVC appears to make it unlawful to use the shoulder to pass either > a stopped car or a huge pothole. Or to miss a pedestrian. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense ----- - gpsman On May 4, 4:25 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: > In article <686taqF1l6ko...@mid.individual.net>, > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can > result in a fully-depreciated one. OK. Lets say that the ticket was legal and makes sense (not to me). It still leaves the "why wasn't the blocking driver ticketed?" Seems there should be something in the law about obstructing traffic. My bet is that if he contests it, it will be thrown out and the cop gets a reaming from the judge. Harry K > My bet is that if he contests it, it will be thrown out and the cop > gets a reaming from the judge. If it's anything like crook county the judge hits him up for the maximum fine PLUS court costs and then the cop, judge, et al have a good laugh about how they fleeced another person who still thinks there is a justice system. >OK. Lets say that the ticket was legal and makes sense (not to me). >It still leaves the "why wasn't the blocking driver ticketed?" Seems >there should be something in the law about obstructing traffic. > >My bet is that if he contests it, it will be thrown out and the cop >gets a reaming from the judge. Not bloody likely. The law in CA requires drivers to pull off the road if a) they are going slower than the normal speed of traffic, and b) there are 5 or more cars stuck behind them. If a Sloth violates this law, and you pass them against the double-yellow center line, guess who's getting the ticket? SignatureProud to be a wreckless driver. >>My bet is that if he contests it, it will be thrown out and the cop >>gets a reaming from the judge. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The law in CA requires drivers to pull off the road if a) they are > going slower than the normal speed of traffic, So the MFFY trying to cut in line was legally required to pull off the oad! -Dave >The law in CA requires drivers to pull off the road if a) they are >going slower than the normal speed of traffic, and b) there are 5 or >more cars stuck behind them. That particular law only refers to "a two-lane highway where passing is unsafe because of traffic in the opposite direction or other conditions", not a freeway as in the original poster's situation. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=0119171412+0+0+0&WAISaction =retrieve 21656. On a two-lane highway where passing is unsafe because of traffic in the opposite direction or other conditions, a slow-moving vehicle, including a passenger vehicle, behind which five or more vehicles are formed in line, shall turn off the roadway at the nearest place designated as a turnout by signs erected by the authority having jurisdiction over the highway, or wherever sufficient area for a safe turnout exists, in order to permit the vehicles following it to proceed. As used in this section a slow-moving vehicle is one which is proceeding at a rate of speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place. >If a Sloth violates this law, and you >pass them against the double-yellow center line, guess who's getting >the ticket? In practice, this law can be very difficult to enforce, since a police officer who comes upon the 5-deep line on "a two lane highway where passing is unsafe" and wants to ticket the driver of the the lead vehicle for not using a turnout needs to get the 5+ vehicles in between the police officer and the slow vehicle whose driver s/he wants to cite to pull off into the turnouts to let the police officer pass. Signature------------------------------------------------------------------------ Timothy J. Lee Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. No warranty of any kind is provided with this message. >...a slow-moving >vehicle, including a passenger vehicle, behind which five or more >vehicles are formed in line, shall turn off the roadway... ... >In practice, this law can be very difficult to enforce... Not just for the reason you mentioned. There are at least three other reasons why it's hard to enforce. 1. If somebody is driving at, say, 35 mph, and the posted speed limit is 40 mph, and the people behind him wish he were driving at 50 mph, they will all form a set of tailgating vehicles behind him. At this point, the normal flow of traffc at that time and place is at 35 mph, because all vehicles in that area are going at that speed. You can't take any steps to "enforce" a statute that nobody is violating. 2. Suppose we decide that the "normal" flow of traffic is not the actual speed of traffic, but rather, the speed at which people *wish* they could go, i.e., 50 mph, if there were no vehicle ahead of them. So now, suppose there are 10 other vehicles waiting behind the driver that we think ought to be going at 50 mph (the "normal" flow of traffic based on wishful thinking) but who is in fact going at 35 mph in a posted 40 mph zone. Now the law, as I read it, requires the said driver as well as the five drivers immediately behind him to all get off the road, because each of these six drivers is going slower than the claimed "normal" speed of traffic of 50 mph, and each of these six drivers has at least five others in the tailgating formation behind him. 3. Now extend this reasoning to a congested two-lane road at rush hour, the posted speed limit behing 40 mph, with everybody going at 20 mph, and wishing they could go at 50. The "normal" flow of traffic based on wishful thinking is 50 mph, so almost everybody must now get off the the road so almost everybody else can get through. How and where do you draw the line at enforcing the law? SignatureRahul http://rahul.rahul.net/ > 1. If somebody is driving at, say, 35 mph, and the posted speed limit is > 40 mph, and the people behind him wish he were driving at 50 mph, they > will all form a set of tailgating vehicles behind him. At this point, > the normal flow of traffc at that time and place is at 35 mph, because > all vehicles in that area are going at that speed. You can't take any > steps to "enforce" a statute that nobody is violating. Try that logic on a bicycle by taking the lane. Eventually a cop will see you do it and after he stops screaming at you, you might get a ticket for it. > 2. Suppose we decide that the "normal" flow of traffic is not the actual > speed of traffic, but rather, the speed at which people *wish* they [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > speed of traffic of 50 mph, and each of these six drivers has at least > five others in the tailgating formation behind him. Um, no. Such laws only demand the lead driver pull over to the side. If the new lead driver does not accelerate then he has to pull aside at the next opertunity. However, under the conditions you specify he will accelerate to 50mph. > 3. Now extend this reasoning to a congested two-lane road at rush hour, > the posted speed limit behing 40 mph, with everybody going at 20 mph, > and wishing they could go at 50. The "normal" flow of traffic based on > wishful thinking is 50 mph, so almost everybody must now get off the the > road so almost everybody else can get through. If caused by a slow driver, it is the lead one that is required to pull to the side first. > How and where do you draw the line at enforcing the law? You could always try your theories with a bicycle and tell us how it turns out. > > 1. If somebody is driving at, say, 35 mph, and the posted speed limit is > > 40 mph, and the people behind him wish he were driving at 50 mph, they [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > see you do it and after he stops screaming at you, you might get a > ticket for it. Such a move by a bicyclist would more than likely deserve being screamed at by a cop and ticketed. In many states, bicyclists are required to ride as far to the right as possible. By extension, a bicyclist should only be taking the lane if conditions are hazardous enough to absolutely require taking the lane, and then they should only take the lane for only as long until the hazardous conditions no longer exist. (It's Share the Road, not Take the Road. If the bicyclist can ride to the right, then they must.) [snip...] >>> 1. If somebody is driving at, say, 35 mph, and the posted speed limit is >>> 40 mph, and the people behind him wish he were driving at 50 mph, they >>> will all form a set of tailgating vehicles behind him. At this point, >>> the normal flow of traffc at that time and place is at 35 mph, because >>> all vehicles in that area are going at that speed. You can't take any >>> steps to "enforce" a statute that nobody is violating. >> Try that logic on a bicycle by taking the lane. Eventually a cop will >> see you do it and after he stops screaming at you, you might get a >> ticket for it. > Such a move by a bicyclist would more than likely deserve being screamed at > by a cop and ticketed. > > In many states, bicyclists are required to ride as far to the right as > possible. As far to the right as *practicable*, not possible. > By extension, a bicyclist should only be taking the lane if > conditions are hazardous enough to absolutely require taking the lane, and > then they should only take the lane for only as long until the hazardous > conditions no longer exist. Or if they're going the normal speed of traffic, which according to some posters in this thread, he would be if he took the lane and rode at his chosen speed. Seriously though, if they're going the same speed as traffic (like 25 mph on a city street), they have no obligation to stay any further to the right than a motor vehicle. When I ride on multi-lane city streets, I take the right most lane. Traffic is free to pass me using one of the lanes to the left. >>>> 1. If somebody is driving at, say, 35 mph, and the posted speed limit is >>>> 40 mph, and the people behind him wish he were driving at 50 mph, they [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >As far to the right as *practicable*, not possible. "Practicable" means "capable of being put into practice". If you could have been riding further to the right, you were breaking the law. >chosen speed. Seriously though, if they're going the same speed as >traffic (like 25 mph on a city street), they have no obligation to stay >any further to the right than a motor vehicle. They have a legal obligation to do so if the law states they must stay as far to the right as is practicable. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>>>> 1. If somebody is driving at, say, 35 mph, and the posted speed limit is >>>>> 40 mph, and the people behind him wish he were driving at 50 mph, they [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > could have been riding further to the right, you were breaking the > law. Is driving while teetering your passenger side car tires on the edge of pavement practicable? Or do you drive with some room to your right to avoid hitting curbs or putting two tires on the grass and other dangerous conditions? >>chosen speed. Seriously though, if they're going the same speed as >>traffic (like 25 mph on a city street), they have no obligation to stay >>any further to the right than a motor vehicle. > They have a legal obligation to do so if the law states they must stay > as far to the right as is practicable. When car drivers start driving scraping their rims along the curb as normal practice I'll consider doing so with a bicycle. >>>>>>1. If somebody is driving at, say, 35 mph, and the posted speed limit is >>>>>>40 mph, and the people behind him wish he were driving at 50 mph, they [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > When car drivers start driving scraping their rims along the curb as > normal practice I'll consider doing so with a bicycle. Um, Brent, take a look at your average soccer mom SUV with white letter tires, a.k.a. "do it yourself whitewalls." You may want to rethink your statement. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel >>>>>>>1. If somebody is driving at, say, 35 mph, and the posted speed >>>>>>>limit is 40 mph, and the people behind him wish he were driving [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >> right to avoid hitting curbs or putting two tires on the grass and >> other dangerous conditions? doesn't matter;it's BICYCLES that are required to be to the right,not autos. >>>>chosen speed. Seriously though, if they're going the same speed as >>>>traffic (like 25 mph on a city street), they have no obligation to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> When car drivers start driving scraping their rims along the curb as >> normal practice I'll consider doing so with a bicycle. an irrational demand. > Um, Brent, take a look at your average soccer mom SUV with white > letter tires, a.k.a. "do it yourself whitewalls." You may want to > rethink your statement. > > nate Brent always twists things to the extreme.Not to "normal",but far beyond. He's trying to rationalize his cycling behavior. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >>> Is driving while teetering your passenger side car tires on the edge >>> of pavement practicable? Or do you drive with some room to your >>> right to avoid hitting curbs or putting two tires on the grass and >>> other dangerous conditions? > doesn't matter;it's BICYCLES that are required to be to the right,not > autos. Incorrect. The requirement only exists if the vehicle is going at less than the normal speed of traffic. For example, here are the relevant FL statutes: 316.2065 Bicycle regulations. (5)(a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway ... 316.081 Driving on right side of roadway (2) Upon all roadways, any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway ... >>>> Is driving while teetering your passenger side car tires on the edge >>>> of pavement practicable? Or do you drive with some room to your [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the > roadway ... Thanks Arif, I didn't want to do that excerise again... >>>> Is driving while teetering your passenger side car tires on the edge >>>> of pavement practicable? Or do you drive with some room to your [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Incorrect. The requirement only exists if the vehicle is going at less > than the normal speed of traffic. Which is the usual case. > For example, here are the relevant FL > statutes: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > (5)(a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at less than the > normal speed of traffic which would be before the bicycle slowed everyone down. > at the time and place and under the conditions > then existing shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the > roadway ... SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > doesn't matter;it's BICYCLES that are required to be to the right,not > autos. Do I have to post the IL vehicle code excerise AGAIN ? You've all been here when I did it the last time and time before that and the time before that and the time before that...... >>> When car drivers start driving scraping their rims along the curb as >>> normal practice I'll consider doing so with a bicycle. > an irrational demand. It's not a demand. I'll consider riding in the gutter when people start driving in the gutter. Until then, it's the gutter and a bad place to ride or drive. > Brent always twists things to the extreme.Not to "normal",but far beyond. Um not at all. I've had this argument with bicycle haters on the road including cops. Teetering on the edge of pavement is EXACTLY what they demand of bicyclists. I've been stopped by TWO cops who told me I had to ride between the edge of the paved surface and the white right side line, that is off the roadway. (IL vehicle code says on the roadway which is to the left of the white line, but the actual law is of no concern to cops) This area of pavement at its widest point was aproximately 3 inches wide. Most of it was less, some of it was zero as the pavement had crumbled and some of the white line had actually been lost to the gravel. Anyway, before they stopped me I had been riding such that my right pedal was even with the line. > He's trying to rationalize his cycling behavior. And what behavior would that be? >>>>>>>1. If somebody is driving at, say, 35 mph, and the posted speed limit is >>>>>>>40 mph, and the people behind him wish he were driving at 50 mph, they [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > tires, a.k.a. "do it yourself whitewalls." You may want to rethink your > statement. They do that damage when parking and sometimes when turning. Not when driving. I've seen it. >Is driving while teetering your passenger side car tires on the edge of >pavement practicable? Or do you drive with some room to your right to >avoid hitting curbs or putting two tires on the grass and other >dangerous conditions? What difference does it make? There's no requirement for a passenger car to ride as far to the right as practicable. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>Is driving while teetering your passenger side car tires on the edge of >>pavement practicable? Or do you drive with some room to your right to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > What difference does it make? There's no requirement for a passenger > car to ride as far to the right as practicable. Arif already posted it. >> > 1. If somebody is driving at, say, 35 mph, and the posted speed limit is >> > 40 mph, and the people behind him wish he were driving at 50 mph, they [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Such a move by a bicyclist would more than likely deserve being screamed at > by a cop and ticketed. It's not nearly as bad as some asshat blocking the road with a motor vehicle. > In many states, bicyclists are required to ride as far to the right as > possible. Um No. The wording is PRACTICABLE. > By extension, a bicyclist should only be taking the lane if > conditions are hazardous enough to absolutely require taking the lane, and > then they should only take the lane for only as long until the hazardous > conditions no longer exist. Um no. read the actual vehicle code some time. > (It's Share the Road, not Take the Road. If the bicyclist can ride to the > right, then they must.) Again, you are mistaken. You'll find vey similiar wording for the drivers of all vehicles. However, that's not the point here. The point is, you slow-is-safe control freak types that like to play games to force other people to drive your speed and then do all sorts of mental and semanic gymnastics with the law and the language to justify it are a bunch of hyprocrits because you cry foul when you have even the perception of being held up by a bicyclist. > Again, you are mistaken. You'll find vey similiar wording for the > drivers of all vehicles. However, that's not the point here. The point [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > bunch of hyprocrits because you cry foul when you have even the > perception of being held up by a bicyclist. Thought I was replying to the same person as before, but wasn't... correction: The slow-is-safe control freak types that like to play games to force other people to drive their speed and then do all sorts of mental and semanic gymnastics with the law and the language to justify it are a bunch of hyprocrits that cry foul when they have even the perception of being held up by a bicyclist. > 1. If somebody is driving at, say, 35 mph, and the posted speed limit is > 40 mph, and the people behind him wish he were driving at 50 mph, they > will all form a set of tailgating vehicles behind him. At this point, > the normal flow of traffc at that time and place is at 35 mph, because > all vehicles in that area are going at that speed. You can't take any > steps to "enforce" a statute that nobody is violating. Then that means that the normal speed of traffic is determined by the majority of drivers. What you're trying to say here is that the normal speed of traffic is determined by an outlier. Let's say that in your example, there's one vehicle driving 35 mph in a 40 mph zone. After 10 minutes, there are 10 vehicles lined up behind the lead driver (all of them wanting to go faster; otherwise they wouldn't have caught up with the lead driver). If the lead driver (the outlier) wasn't there, then they would be going faster. > How and where do you draw the line at enforcing the law? Who cares? Push the bastard over the edge with a bulldozer and everybody else will be much better off. The convenience of the many outweighs the stupidity of the few. Note: I'm almost half serious here... SignatureCheers, Bev ==================================================================== "We thought about one of those discount store caskets, but, frankly, we were worried about the quality." -- mortuary commercial >>...a slow-moving >>vehicle, including a passenger vehicle, behind which five or more [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >the normal flow of traffc at that time and place is at 35 mph, because >all vehicles in that area are going at that speed. You're using an incorrect definition of "normal flow of traffic." "Normal" in this context refers to the speed most cars would travel if not impeded by Sloth, cops shooting radar, and other artificial barriers. The 85th percentile speed is defined similarly. SignatureProud to be a wreckless driver. I defined the normal flow of traffic as the speed at which most of the vehicles were traveling at that time and place. Scott argues that normal flow of traffic" should be defined as the speed at which most cars would travel if there were no slow driver ahead of them. I call this the "wishful thinking" definition of normal flow of traffic. A police officer wanting to enforce the law would read the minds of motorists, determine at what speed they wished they could travel, and then issue citations accordingly. Arif offers an alternative definition based on looking at the past. If 10 minutes ago the traffic was going at some speed, and now it's going at a slower speed, then the faster speed from 10 minutes ago is the normal flow of traffic. I will call this the "time travel" definition of normal flow of traffic. The police officer in this case would have to stay in the same spot for at least 10 minutes, to figure out the normal flow of traffic, and then issue citations if the taffic slowed down. Any other interesting definitions of "normal flow of traffic" based on something other than the actual flow of traffic at that time and place? SignatureRahul http://rahul.rahul.net/ >I defined the normal flow of traffic as the speed at which most of >the vehicles were traveling at that time and place. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >of them. I call this the "wishful thinking" definition of normal flow of >traffic. LOL!! Who are you, Carl Troller? "Normal" is a statistical term. It has the useful property that outlying samples are outweighed, i.e. given a large enough sample, the very fastest drivers and the very slowest drivers aren't allowed to have much of an influence on the overall mean of a normal distribution. Sorry that fact upsets your apple cart, Mr. Claybrook. SignatureProud to be a wreckless driver. Scott previously defined the normal flow of traffic via wishful thinking, i.e., the speed at which motorists wished they could go. Now he offers an alternative definition, claiming that '"Normal" is a statistical term' and further, 'given a large enough sample, the very fastest drivers and the very slowest drivers aren't allowed to have much of an influence on the overall mean of a normal distribution.' There are a lot of problems here. First, "normal" has many meanings: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/normal Only one of the many meanings relates to statistics. I can find no reason to believe that any of the vehicle codes that mention normal flow of traffic are referring to a statistical distribution. This may be just more wishful thinking on Scot's part. Another problem is that a normal curve in statistics arises out of multiple independent events. Unfortunately, motorists in the same region at the same time on a two-lane road cannot drive independently of one another, because they cannot pass through other. In other words, motorists on a macroscopic scale are like Fermions on a quantum scale, which must occupy distinct states. Only in Scot's wishful thinking could the motororists act like Bosons which can in fact pass through one another. Motorists close together on a road and in the same lane are pretty much forced to all drive at almost the same speed, yielding a scatter diagrem with very little scatter, and not a normal curve at all. SignatureRahul http://rahul.rahul.net/ [Blah Blah Blah] Give it up. Your ridiculous definition of "normal speed of traffic" has no basis in reality. If it did, you'd have a cite from the MUTCD or some other official document. As it is, all you have is a definition you pulled out of youre own a.s. SignatureProud to be a wreckless driver. >>I defined the normal flow of traffic as the speed at which most of >>the vehicles were traveling at that time and place. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >LOL!! Who are you, Carl Troller? Naa, Dhesi's a longtime member of the anti-destination league. Previously his thing was to complain that drivers changed lanes too much (probably to get around his slothly vehicle). SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>If a Sloth violates this law, and you >>pass them against the double-yellow center line, guess who's getting [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >the police officer and the slow vehicle whose driver s/he wants to cite >to pull off into the turnouts to let the police officer pass. Give me a break. The disco lights come on. Car #5 pulls off the road. Cop continues driving and pulls up behind car #4. Car #4 pulls off. Repeat until the lead car pulls off the road, at which point the cop pulls off also and writes the ticket. SignatureProud to be a wreckless driver. >>>If a Sloth violates this law, and you >>>pass them against the double-yellow center line, guess who's getting [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >lead car pulls off the road, at which point the cop pulls off also and >writes the ticket. That would take about 6 turnouts or other safe places to turn off (and then only if the line is 5 deep behind the slow lead vehicle -- it could be longer). Turnouts or other safe places to turn off are not always that frequent. Signature------------------------------------------------------------------------ Timothy J. Lee Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. No warranty of any kind is provided with this message. >> In no event shall such movement be made by driving off the >> paved or main-traveled portion of the roadway. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >deliberately blocking the lane, and I won't sit there and wait because >that can be dangerous and it wastes my time and petrol unnecessarily. I agree that the law should be changed. Some states explicitly allow the use of the shoulder for passing IFF the main travel lane is blocked. SignatureProud to be a wreckless driver. |
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.