On 03/22/2013 11:30 AM, gpsman wrote:
> On Mar 22, 10:00 am, Nate Nagel > wrote:
>> On 03/22/2013 09:00 AM, gpsman wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 22, 8:37 am, Nate Nagel > wrote:
>>>> On 03/22/2013 01:38 AM, gpsman wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Mar 21, 10:30 pm, Nate Nagel > wrote:
>>>>>> On 03/21/2013 09:47 PM, Evan Platt wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> One of my jobs requires me to be EVOC certified every year, and they
>>>>>>> always teach to drive in the middle lane. That way if you need to turn
>>>>>>> in either direction, you're not all across the road.
>>
>>>>>> That makes sense on a six or more lane surface street (where such
>>>>>> exist,) but not on a multi-lane controlled access highway...
>>
>>>>> Fascinating analysis.
>>
>>>> Please explain how you're going to turn left on a controlled-access highway.
>>
>>> The usual method; turning the "steering wheel" counter-clockwise.
>>
>> *sigh*
>>
>> and how are you going to get across the six foot deep grassy depression
>> (alternately, Jersey barrier) and where are you going to go after that?
>
> Around blockages/slower traffic, away from the slower and more chaotic
> R-lane, etc.
>
> In the case of some crashes, believe it or not, the fastest (and
> sometimes only) route to the crash scene is via the opposite side of
> the highway.
>
> Surely you've seen images of accesses to both sides of divided limited
> access highways posted "Emergency (or Official) Vehicles Only"...
> no...?

Seems to be something that doesn't happen around here - the area between
the lanes is usually taken up with something else, actually. Often
express lanes, Metro train tracks, etc.

In any case, where I have seen them exist, they're only every couple
miles or so, if you know where they are plenty of time to change lanes
before getting there.

>> Really, I'm certain that everyone else reading this understood what the
>> issues might be with "turning left on a multi-lane controlled-access
>> highway" save for you.
>
> You seem often certain of things for which you have no evidence, or
> that everyone else is as stupid and/or ignorant and/or unimaginative
> as yourself.

No, I figured that an intelligent person would be able to follow the
discussion without my having to spell everything out in excruciating
detail. That actually seems to be the case...

nate


--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel