There's much more than drunk drivers that need to be controlled

Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
> On 29 Sep 2006 06:48:10 -0700, "Tim Kreitz" >
> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Any number of studies and stats can be googled that show how in areas
> >where highway speed limits are higher, per-capita fatalities are LOWER.
> >Germany, Italy, and (until recently) Montana are all good examples,
> >just for starters.
> >
>
> HAHAHAHA. Don't start in with that nonsense again. The issue was
> settled back in 1974 when america went to the 55 and immediately
> highway deaths plumetted.

Heh. Drive a modern car at 75, and drive an early 70s car at 75. If
highway deaths decreased with the speed limit lowered to 55, that's
because old cars couldn't handle a faster speed. Modern cars can.

Tim is absolutely right. Pretty much anywhere speed limits were
increased, the accident rates dropped or at worst remained the same.
There was a case like this recently, where the speed limit was
increased on a stretch of highway in Texas.

Speed limits that are too low make drivers bored and inattentive, which
makes them more dangerous.

-Gniewko

Dave Head wrote:
> On 28 Sep 2006 13:09:31 -0700, "donquijote1954" >
> wrote:
>
> >There's much more than drunk drivers that need to be controlled. It's
> >the whole system that needs to be changed. The License to Kill given to
> >absolute beginners, the lack of lane discipline (passing on the right,
> >something unheard of in Europe),
>
> There
>
> is
>
> nothing
>
> wrong
>
> with
>
> passing
>
> on
>
> the
>
> right.
>
> Period.

Yes, there is A LOT wrong with it.

1. If you know that nobody will pass on the right, you can safely
change to the right lane with a quick check that there is nobody next
to you, because you know that there isn't anybody coming up faster from
behind. This halves the number of lane-change accidents right there,
because no such accident will happen in a lane change to the right.

2. You also know that traffic to the left is always faster, so people
will take more care changing lanes to the left.

3. Lane discipline makes traffic flow much better. If you're driving
fast, you can just stay in the left lane, and people will move right
out of your way (which they can do easily and safely because of point
1). The fast driver doesn't have to weave in and out of traffic, which
is another way that accidents are reduced.

4. Lane discipline makes traffic MUCH more predictable, which reduces
accidents. At any point it's much easier to predict what any given car
will or won't do. Again, this is much safer.

Lane discipline and the "no passing on the right" rule makes roads much
safer. There is absolutely no doubt about it. And to address your
problem with people having to pass a slow driver in the left lane -
that's an issue of enforcement and driver education. In most places in
Europe, the slow driver would quickly move out of the way, and if he
didn't, he would be the one that gets the ticket.

-Gniewko

In article >,
Zoot Katz > wrote:
>
>You pig headed coffin jockeys don't realise that you can never look
>sexy in your plastic lined cages.

Of course I can't. As long as the passenger does, that's fine :-)
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 15:55:14 GMT, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are
MURDERERS > wrote:
>On 29 Sep 2006 06:48:10 -0700, "Tim Kreitz" >
>wrote:
>
>>Any number of studies and stats can be googled that show how in areas
>>where highway speed limits are higher, per-capita fatalities are LOWER.
>>Germany, Italy, and (until recently) Montana are all good examples,
>>just for starters.
>>
>
>HAHAHAHA. Don't start in with that nonsense again. The issue was
>settled back in 1974 when america went to the 55 and immediately
>highway deaths plumetted.

The safest roads in America are Insterstate highways - they are also
the roads with the highest average speeds.

--
Turby the Turbosurfer

On 29 Sep 2006 11:07:55 -0700, wrote:

>Dave Head wrote:
>> On 28 Sep 2006 13:09:31 -0700, "donquijote1954" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >There's much more than drunk drivers that need to be controlled. It's
>> >the whole system that needs to be changed. The License to Kill given to
>> >absolute beginners, the lack of lane discipline (passing on the right,
>> >something unheard of in Europe),
>>
>> There
>>
>> is
>>
>> nothing
>>
>> wrong
>>
>> with
>>
>> passing
>>
>> on
>>
>> the
>>
>> right.
>>
>> Period.
>
>Yes, there is A LOT wrong with it.
>
>1. If you know that nobody will pass on the right, you can safely
>change to the right lane with a quick check that there is nobody next
>to you,

You never know that, and such a paradigm is absolutely no excuse for not
looking what is beside and behind your vehicle, no matter what. Could be a cop
on a high speed run. Etc.


>because you know that there isn't anybody coming up faster from
>behind. This halves the number of lane-change accidents right there,
>because no such accident will happen in a lane change to the right.

It sure will if people go to not looking thoroughly before the change lanes to
the right.

>
>2. You also know that traffic to the left is always faster, so people
>will take more care changing lanes to the left.

Never going to happen with the 1) left exits in this country and 2) the drivers
in this country.

>3. Lane discipline makes traffic flow much better.

It might... if we could get away with it here. But it was tried, it didn't
work, and the law was repealed. It as much a dead horse as one can get.

>If you're driving
>fast, you can just stay in the left lane, and people will move right
>out of your way (which they can do easily and safely because of point
>1). The fast driver doesn't have to weave in and out of traffic, which
>is another way that accidents are reduced.

Ideal world. It'd be great. It'll never happen.

>4. Lane discipline makes traffic MUCH more predictable, which reduces
>accidents. At any point it's much easier to predict what any given car
>will or won't do. Again, this is much safer.

And, as long as we have severely underposted speed limits, with people going
fast on the right and using people in the left lane to block the radar signals
from cops crusing the other way in the left lane... it'll still never happen.
Get some sane speed limits... maybe we'd have a change at KRETP.

>Lane discipline and the "no passing on the right" rule makes roads much
>safer.

They would, if you didn't have 18 wheelers in the left lane climbing hills at
23 mph, passing other 18 wheelers that are climibing the same hill at 17 mph in
the right lane. The beat goes on. Hell will freeze over before KRETP is
practical in this country for a whole load of reasons.

>There is absolutely no doubt about it. And to address your
>problem with people having to pass a slow driver in the left lane -
>that's an issue of enforcement and driver education. In most places in
>Europe, the slow driver would quickly move out of the way, and if he
>didn't, he would be the one that gets the ticket.

European experience is non-applicable to this country. All the theoretical
stuff sounds great, but it ain't reality here, so, in the meantime, there's
absolutely nothing wrong with passing on the right. Period.

Dave Head

>
>-Gniewko

"Dave Head" > wrote in message
...
> On 28 Sep 2006 13:09:31 -0700, "donquijote1954"
> >
> wrote:
>
>>There's much more than drunk drivers that need to be controlled. It's
>>the whole system that needs to be changed. The License to Kill given to
>>absolute beginners, the lack of lane discipline (passing on the right,
>>something unheard of in Europe),
>
> There
>
> is
>
> nothing
>
> wrong
>
> with
>
> passing
>
> on
>
> the
>
> right.
>
> Period.
>
> I wish to hell people would stop coming up with this stuff. What Europe
> does
> is non-relavent in the USA. This silly law was repealed 30+ years ago
> here
> when we began building our interstates with left exits, among other things
> that
> included everyone being infuriated at someone in the left lane doing the
> SL -
> 10 mph and then getting a ticket for passing the SOB.
>
> Dave Head

There's a reason they call it "undertaking" in the UK and it is still
illegal there IIRC

Allowing for differences of left and right hand drive:-)

"Dave Head" > wrote in message
...
> On 28 Sep 2006 13:09:31 -0700, "donquijote1954"
> >
> wrote:
>
<snip> ....... the lack of lane discipline (passing on the right,
>>something unheard of in Europe),
>
> There is nothing wrong with passing on the right. Period.
>
> I wish to hell people would stop coming up with this stuff. What Europe
> does
> is non-relavent in the USA. This silly law was repealed 30+ years ago
> here
> when we began building our interstates with left exits, among other things
> that
> included everyone being infuriated at someone in the left lane doing the
> SL -
> 10 mph and then getting a ticket for passing the SOB.
>
> Dave Head

In New Jersey USA it is actually illegal to pass on the right except on a
multi-lane road when the passee is making a left turn. If you do it on a
freeway (or even on a 2 lane road when the vehicle in front is making a
left) it is specifically illegal and people do get tickets for it.
Tomes

Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:

>Lane integrity laws.?? HAHAHA. What about the deadly speeders and
>drunk drivers, you nitwit??

Plonk!

On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 18:42:22 -0400, "Bill Brabender" >
wrote:

>
>"Dave Head" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On 28 Sep 2006 13:09:31 -0700, "donquijote1954"
>> >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>There's much more than drunk drivers that need to be controlled. It's
>>>the whole system that needs to be changed. The License to Kill given to
>>>absolute beginners, the lack of lane discipline (passing on the right,
>>>something unheard of in Europe),
>>
>> There
>>
>> is
>>
>> nothing
>>
>> wrong
>>
>> with
>>
>> passing
>>
>> on
>>
>> the
>>
>> right.
>>
>> Period.
>>
>> I wish to hell people would stop coming up with this stuff. What Europe
>> does
>> is non-relavent in the USA. This silly law was repealed 30+ years ago
>> here
>> when we began building our interstates with left exits, among other things
>> that
>> included everyone being infuriated at someone in the left lane doing the
>> SL -
>> 10 mph and then getting a ticket for passing the SOB.
>>
>> Dave Head
>
>There's a reason they call it "undertaking" in the UK and it is still
>illegal there IIRC
>
>Allowing for differences of left and right hand drive:-)

Fine, but _we_ aren't in the UK, and there is no more danger in passing on the
right here than there is in passing on the left here.

Dave Head
>
>

On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 22:45:32 GMT, "Tomes" > wrote:

>
>"Dave Head" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On 28 Sep 2006 13:09:31 -0700, "donquijote1954"
>> >
>> wrote:
>>
><snip> ....... the lack of lane discipline (passing on the right,
>>>something unheard of in Europe),
>>
>> There is nothing wrong with passing on the right. Period.
>>
>> I wish to hell people would stop coming up with this stuff. What Europe
>> does
>> is non-relavent in the USA. This silly law was repealed 30+ years ago
>> here
>> when we began building our interstates with left exits, among other things
>> that
>> included everyone being infuriated at someone in the left lane doing the
>> SL -
>> 10 mph and then getting a ticket for passing the SOB.
>>
>> Dave Head
>
>In New Jersey USA it is actually illegal to pass on the right except on a
>multi-lane road when the passee is making a left turn. If you do it on a
>freeway (or even on a 2 lane road when the vehicle in front is making a
>left) it is specifically illegal and people do get tickets for it.
>Tomes

New Jersey is a famous nanny state that is going to protect absolutely
everybody from absolutely everything, or so they think. Or, this may be more
about making money via tickets. But in the vast majority of the remainder of
the USA, including famously-speed-conscious Ohio, its still legal to pass on
the right. Has been for 30+ years.

Dave Head

>
>