Finally, California drivers can read a cell phone map (iPad too?)

On 2014-03-16, T0m $herman > wrote:
> On 3/15/2014 5:50 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> On 2014-03-15, T0m $herman > wrote:
>>> On 3/12/2014 12:42 AM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>>
>>>> They stick to the left lane going way faster than everyone else, and
>>>> then after tailgating someone in the left lane for a while and getting
>>>> all ****y that people aren't getting out of their way since they own the
>>>> road, they swerve in front of other drivers in the right lane to pass. I
>>>> see it happen a lot, yep.
>>>
>>> Richard Petty was right - bumper tapping people blocking the passing
>>> lane is acceptable behavior.
>>
>> Sorry, while I'm sure you are making a joke here, driving in an unsafe
>> manner is never acceptable behavior.
>>
> Yes, blocking the inside lane on a controlled access road is unsafe and
> never acceptable.

You'd have to be a complete idiot to believe that tapping someone's
bumper at high speed is less dangerous than simply slowing down and
changing lanes to avoid slower traffic in front of you.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 2014-03-16, T0m $herman > wrote:
> On 3/15/2014 5:31 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> Another reason one might find themselves wanting to be in the
>> middle lane is when there are a lot of cars on an entrance ramp entering
>> the highway in the right lane.
>
> Why? You have the right-of-way over the merging vehicles, and it is up
> to them to avoid you.

Because often cars entering the road will slow you down, whether you
like it or not. Duh.

I guess you'd prefer I bump into them with the front of my car instead,
or drive them off the road. After all, slow driving on a highway is
unsafe, so I'd be excused for driving in an unsafe manner to get back at
them, right?

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 3/15/2014 10:50 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2014-03-16, T0m $herman > wrote:
>> On 3/15/2014 5:46 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>> On 2014-03-15, T0m $herman > wrote:
>>>> On 3/12/2014 12:53 AM, Your Name wrote:
>>>>> I said "some places". There's also a variety of other reasons for
>>>>> perhaps not moving over to the "slower" lanes ... including all the
>>>>> impatient morons zooming up behind you, changing lanes and passing you
>>>>> on the "wrong side".
>>>>
>>>> Your paragraph makes no sense. Staying in the right lane (left lane for
>>>> most of the Commonwealth and Japan) means the faster traffic will
>>>> naturally overtake on the correct side. Works in Northern Europe, where
>>>> the police *will* ticket you for blocking the inside lane.
>>>
>>> That makes perfect sense for two-lane roads. Are all of the highways you
>>> drive two-lane roads? Around these parts, we can have many more than
>>> just two lanes. Or do you expect all drivers to remain in the right-most
>>> lane even when there are 3, 4, or 5 lanes available, just so that the
>>> Fast & Furious can have the road all to themselves?
>>>
>> Yes I do,
>
> Expecting all drivers other than yourself to remain in the right-most
> lane even when there are 3, 4, or 5 lanes available not only absurd, but
> it simply will not happen under normal driving conditions on most
> highways, unless the roadway is void of cars altogether, which is
> obviously not what we are talking about here.
>
>> and yes I did when I commuted regularly on 6 and 8-lane
>> controlled access roads.
>
> You did what?... Expected all other drivers not to occupy anything but
> the right-most lane? Did the other drivers live up to your silly
> expectation? Did you have all lanes except the right lane all to
> yourself?
>
<Yawn>

No silly, not that.

--
T0m $herm@n

On 3/15/2014 10:52 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2014-03-16, T0m $herman > wrote:
>> On 3/15/2014 6:01 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>> On 2014-03-15, T0m $herman > wrote:
>>>> On 3/12/2014 8:48 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>>> Riiight, because people*never* drive dangerously unless someone else is
>>>>> forcing them to drive dangerously. You're a ****ing idiot if this is
>>>>> what you truly believe. If you practice what you preach, then you're
>>>>> also one of the ass hats doing the dangerous driving. Do everyone a
>>>>> favor and stop driving, **** wad.
>>>>
>>>> You are a self-righteous fool who knows nothing about proper driving.
>>>
>>> If you believe that driving in an unsafe manner is excusable just
>>> because someone else is doing something you happen to dislike, then it
>>> is *you* who knows nothing about proper driving.
>>>
>> Attack straw-men much?
>
> Act a fool much?
>
> Seriously if this is the level at which you argue, we might as well just
> stop now. You're being very silly.
>
<Yawn>

The old "declare I won the argument, so it must be so" tactic.

--
T0m $herm@n

On 3/15/2014 10:53 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2014-03-16, T0m $herman > wrote:
>> On 3/15/2014 5:50 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>> On 2014-03-15, T0m $herman > wrote:
>>>> On 3/12/2014 12:42 AM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> They stick to the left lane going way faster than everyone else, and
>>>>> then after tailgating someone in the left lane for a while and getting
>>>>> all ****y that people aren't getting out of their way since they own the
>>>>> road, they swerve in front of other drivers in the right lane to pass. I
>>>>> see it happen a lot, yep.
>>>>
>>>> Richard Petty was right - bumper tapping people blocking the passing
>>>> lane is acceptable behavior.
>>>
>>> Sorry, while I'm sure you are making a joke here, driving in an unsafe
>>> manner is never acceptable behavior.
>>>
>> Yes, blocking the inside lane on a controlled access road is unsafe and
>> never acceptable.
>
> You'd have to be a complete idiot to believe that tapping someone's
> bumper at high speed is less dangerous than simply slowing down and
> changing lanes to avoid slower traffic in front of you.
>
Who said it was less dangerous? Spinning people out who deliberately
block the passing lane would be dangerous, but ultimately a social
benefit. Got to break a few eggs to make an omelet, eh?

--
T0m $herm@n

On 2014-03-15 20:55:44 +0000, Your Name said:

> In article >, DevilsPGD
> > wrote:
>
>> In the last episode of >, Your
>> Name > said:
>>
>>> I have never seen such a system in any car, including Hyundai models,
>>> that I've ever driven or been in. A Google search does seem to indicate
>>> that it does exist though.
>>
>> You should look closer. I went through a phase a couple years ago where
>> my girlfriend and I rented a car every 1-2 months, virtually all had
>> some degree of automatic volume control.
>
> Maybe it's just another of those "lazy American" things ;-) and not
> available (yet) in the real world.

You were wrong.

By now you must be used to that.

Be a man and simply admit it.

On 3/15/2014 10:56 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2014-03-16, T0m $herman > wrote:
>> On 3/15/2014 5:31 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>> Another reason one might find themselves wanting to be in the
>>> middle lane is when there are a lot of cars on an entrance ramp entering
>>> the highway in the right lane.
>>
>> Why? You have the right-of-way over the merging vehicles, and it is up
>> to them to avoid you.
>
> Because often cars entering the road will slow you down, whether you
> like it or not. Duh.
>
> I guess you'd prefer I bump into them with the front of my car instead,
> or drive them off the road. After all, slow driving on a highway is
> unsafe, so I'd be excused for driving in an unsafe manner to get back at
> them, right?
>
If more collisions happened to bad actors, they would improve their
behavior. People need to learn how to merge, or they should stay the
hell off controlled access roads.

Why enable bad behavior?

--
T0m $herm@n

On 2014-03-16 02:50:15 +0000, Your Name said:

> In article >, T0m $herman
> > wrote:
>
>> On 3/11/2014 12:12 AM, Your Name wrote:
>>> In article >, DevilsPGD
>>> > wrote:
>>>> In the last episode of >, Your
>>>> Name > said:
>>>>> In article >, Ashton Crusher
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:12:22 +1300, Your Name >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> In article >, Ashton Crusher
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, we also need to ban speedometers, oil pressure gauges,
>>>>>>>> temperature gauges, radio dials, AC controls, etc since they all need
>>>>>>>> to be seen and/or touched by the driver.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How in the world do idiots like you manage to exist in nature?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Technically, the radio dial and AC controls don't need to be seen nor
>>>>>>> touched by the driver while driving (neither do the warning lights if
>>>>>>> they have audible alerts as well).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Some cars have started using "HUD" displays for the speedometer,
>>>>>>> although personally I think that would be more distracting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Really? You switch the ac from vent to AC thru mind control? same
>>>>>> with switching radio stations?
>>>>>
>>>>> Neither of those things is actually necceassary to do while driving.
>>>>
>>>> While technically true, in a practical sense, people won't be happy
>>>> being unable to adjust such things to their comfort, it's a measured
>>>> risk.
>>>
>>> You "adjust things" when you get in. You pull over somewhere safe to
>>> "adjust things". There's no need to "adjust things" while actually
>>> driving.
>>>
>> Yes there is, at least to address window fogging in winter conditions.
>> Hint - the vehicle being in motion makes a difference, so things cannot
>> be correctly adjusted while sitting at the side of the road.
>
> When you see the windows starting to fog up, you pull over and start
> the "defogging" equipment, wait for the windows to clear well enough
> for driving, and THEN continue driving.
>
> If you open the windows a little and set the vents, etc. properly
> before even starting out, then there's less chance of the windows
> fogging up in the first place.

So turning a knob to start defogging the windows is too much distraction...

....but opening a window--also "unnecessary" by your standard--isn't?

On 2014-03-16, T0m $herman > wrote:
> On 3/15/2014 10:56 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> On 2014-03-16, T0m $herman > wrote:
>>> On 3/15/2014 5:31 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>> Another reason one might find themselves wanting to be in the
>>>> middle lane is when there are a lot of cars on an entrance ramp entering
>>>> the highway in the right lane.
>>>
>>> Why? You have the right-of-way over the merging vehicles, and it is up
>>> to them to avoid you.
>>
>> Because often cars entering the road will slow you down, whether you
>> like it or not. Duh.
>>
>> I guess you'd prefer I bump into them with the front of my car instead,
>> or drive them off the road. After all, slow driving on a highway is
>> unsafe, so I'd be excused for driving in an unsafe manner to get back at
>> them, right?
>>
> If more collisions happened to bad actors, they would improve their
> behavior.

Well then by all means, you should go right ahead and wreck into them,
fool.

> People need to learn how to merge, or they should stay the
> hell off controlled access roads.

This is an imperfect world. Deal with it. And it's of course best to
deal with it without doing reckless things to make the roads even more
unsafe for everyone else.

> Why enable bad behavior?

You seem to be volunteering for the job of teaching them. Have fun with
that.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 2014-03-16, T0m $herman > wrote:
> On 3/15/2014 10:50 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> On 2014-03-16, T0m $herman > wrote:
>>> On 3/15/2014 5:46 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>> On 2014-03-15, T0m $herman > wrote:
>>>>> On 3/12/2014 12:53 AM, Your Name wrote:
>>>>>> I said "some places". There's also a variety of other reasons for
>>>>>> perhaps not moving over to the "slower" lanes ... including all the
>>>>>> impatient morons zooming up behind you, changing lanes and passing you
>>>>>> on the "wrong side".
>>>>>
>>>>> Your paragraph makes no sense. Staying in the right lane (left lane for
>>>>> most of the Commonwealth and Japan) means the faster traffic will
>>>>> naturally overtake on the correct side. Works in Northern Europe, where
>>>>> the police *will* ticket you for blocking the inside lane.
>>>>
>>>> That makes perfect sense for two-lane roads. Are all of the highways you
>>>> drive two-lane roads? Around these parts, we can have many more than
>>>> just two lanes. Or do you expect all drivers to remain in the right-most
>>>> lane even when there are 3, 4, or 5 lanes available, just so that the
>>>> Fast & Furious can have the road all to themselves?
>>>>
>>> Yes I do,
>>
>> Expecting all drivers other than yourself to remain in the right-most
>> lane even when there are 3, 4, or 5 lanes available not only absurd, but
>> it simply will not happen under normal driving conditions on most
>> highways, unless the roadway is void of cars altogether, which is
>> obviously not what we are talking about here.
>>
>>> and yes I did when I commuted regularly on 6 and 8-lane
>>> controlled access roads.
>>
>> You did what?... Expected all other drivers not to occupy anything but
>> the right-most lane? Did the other drivers live up to your silly
>> expectation? Did you have all lanes except the right lane all to
>> yourself?
>>
><Yawn>
>
> No silly, not that.

You're boring. Into the kill file you go.

*plonk*

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR