On Mar 23, 8:13*am, Nate Nagel > wrote:
> On 03/22/2013 11:30 AM, gpsman wrote:
>
> > 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.

Why is it important to discard the other logical reasons and limit
your response to "what you've seen"...?

> >> 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...

Who in this thread can you cite for which that actually seems the
case...? Who is it that seems to "get" your nonsense?

How can you possibly not realize that you're functionally illiterate
and not at all intelligent despite the evidence you seem obsessed with
continually providing?
-----

- gpsman