A New Category of Sloth

The Real Bev wrote:
> Dave wrote:
>
> > Old Wolf wrote:
> >> Dave wrote:
> >> >
> >> > How about those drivers that, rather than using the bike lane (if
> >> > available) pull as far LEFT in a lane as they can, when making a RIGHT
> >> > turn?
> >>
> >> This gives them the best driving line through the corner, saving
> >> them time and gas and making their turn safer. However, it is
> >> very inconsiderate to the people they hold up in the process,
> >> so I only ever do it when nobody is directly behind me.
> >
> > CA vehicle code says it's wrong to not use the bike lane, when
> > available, according to a DMV tester. I assumed I wasn't supposed to
> > do it during my test, so I didn't, and lost points.
> >
> > Oh well, at least now I know that I'm right to use it here. A lot of
> > roads had right turn lanes removed to make bike lanes, so it's a good
> > idea to allow cars to use it if bikes aren't present.
>
> You should always use that lane to make a right turn. The "bike lanes" are
> for informational purposes only and carry no weight at all

They really don't unless an accident happens. Then you get more
screwed, if you hit a bicyclist in one, or so I was told.

> -- or so I was
> informed by my councildroid and the traffic engineer at the meeting to discuss
> painting white bike-lane lines in the street. Their real value is that
> somehow they make traffic go slower and are therefore one of the hated
> "calming devices."

People in SD don't seem to notice them, since they're on the side of
almost every road in any of the newer neighborhoods. They also appear
a bit wider here than most I've noticed in LA. The extra width seems
to make things more comfortable for the driver and bicyclist.

> They didn't use paint, they used that thick plastic-like substance that
> becomes as slippery as grease when wet. If I didn't know better I'd think
> they were trying to kill us bikers. Wait, I don't actually know better... I
> hate the damn things from both the driver's and the biker's standpoint.

Wow, I guess we have it better in San Diego. It just looks like and
feels like paint here, but we also have more bike lanes than any city
that I've noticed them in.

> What you DO have to do is make sure you don't drive over a bicyclist whether
> he's in a "bike lane" or not.

Heh, what if they run red lights? Then can I flatten them? Please?

Dave

Old Wolf wrote:
> Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>
> > We have already identified several categories of Sloth, including
> > * Sloth Mergers,
> > * Sloth Coasters,
> > * Sloth Passers,
> > * Sloth Speeders,
>
> Don't forget about Sloth Creepers, the morons who stop well before
> an intersection, just far enough away so that they don't trigger the
> light sensor. When tooted, they proceed forward at a snail's pace.

I like that one. How about Sloth Stoppers, the ones who hit the brakes
at every green light, starting chain-reaction braking and generally
slowing up everyone significantly?

Dave

Brent P wrote:
> In article . com>, gpsman wrote:
> > Brent P wrote:
> >> gpsman wrote:
> >
> >> > Other drivers making it through green signals is their own problem.
> >>
> >> How selfish.
> >
> > How so?
>
> You clearly don't care one wit about the flow or anyone but yourself.
> It's all about you and only you making it through the green signal, the
> hell with anyone else. You are driving for you, not the system as a
> whole. Instead of making things better for everyone, you concern yourself
> with only making things better for you.

And... what do you do to make things better for *me*?

I drive as prescribed by law. If speeding MFFY's have a problem with
that, that's their problem. The "flow" beyond the speed limit is none
of my concern. I KRETP and maintain a safe following distance. THAT'S
THE SYSTEM!!! Everybody disobeying the speed limit is fighting the
system, not me.
>
> > My job is to drive my vehicle, safely.
>
> Your responsibility is much greater than that.
>
> > The ever-increasing
> > number of drivers driving ever-increasingly unsafely means I have to
> > drive a little slower to compensate.
>
> I have yet to find a condition where that makes me delay other road users
> in getting through an intersection.
>
> > I never enter an intersection without ensuring that it's safe to do so.
>
> Let me guess, you don't even start looking if it's safe until you reach
> the head of the queue? A typical habbit of sloth is to be totally
> unaware of the situation until they reach the front of the queue and then
> sit there, pausing, to see if it's safe to turn. This either reduces the
> number of vehicles that can make it through a gap in traffic or results
> in the gap closing without anyone getting through it.

You assume a lot.

> > I can't (won't) assume that
> > everybody else will obey the signal that allows me the right-of-way.
>
> So you shouldn't drive. Ever.

Pfffft...

> > If that adds a second or two, I think it's worth it.
>
> 2 seconds for everyone and suddenly the throughput of the intersection is
> greatly reduced and soon it takes an hour to go six miles.

I said "if". That doesn't mean every time or even most of the time.
It means sometimes.

> > If you don't
> > agree, leave a few seconds earlier to compensate for me.
>
> You don't even understand how the system works. It's not just a couple of
> seconds. It can be HOURS. It is a throughput issue. Once you reduce the
> throughput of an intersection the traffic builds up. Eventually it builds
> up into the previous traffic signal. This results in a crushing
> congestion.

I understand how the system as distorted by drivers with your attitude
*doesn't* work! And I know how it *should* work. A second or two
delay to prevent a crash is preferable to a delay caused by a crash,
isn't it?

> > Measuring
> > travel time in seconds or a couple minutes is your perogative. My
> > philosophy is "As long as it takes is as long as it takes". I haven't
> > been in a hurry in over 20 years... and my life is better for it.
>
> Yet you have no concept of the problems that sloth causes to the system
> as a whole. Maybe you enjoy taking a hour to go 6 miles. I don't. Keep in
> mind that I just want to be able to achieve travel times that are
> appropiate for a BICYCLE. Remember, my vehicle of choice is a bicycle.
> How much of hurry do you think I'm in, if I judge it from a bicycling
> POV?

I know sloths contribute minimally to problems of the system as a
whole. It's simple percentages. The ratio of sloths/speeders is what,
maybe 1/1000? Don't you live in SoCal? There it's probably 1/10,000.
I don't see how sloths could be the main problem simply because there's
so few of 'em.

> In Germany, I found people drive much like I do. Hell, I found in WV
> people drive considerably better than in chicago. In WV I actually saw a
> woman in a minivan accelerate to get out of the way of the traffic flow
> to make her turn without interfering with other drivers. That's what I am
> talking about, driving such that one doesn't impact the system
> negatively. Driving such that everyone can get where they are going.

CA surfers used that bull**** when they came to HI: "Where *I* come
from...". The unwavering response as they were getting their asses
kicked was: "YOU'RE NOT WHERE YOU COME FROM BRAH!" (but won't you have
interesting stories to tell about "Pipe" and "Backdoor"... while you
were actually surfing "Leftovers").

You're assuming the motivation of the minivan driver. Irrelevant. You
assume too much..

Speeding interferes with "the system" more than sloths (whose numbers
barely exist). Speeding is unaccounted for in the design of roadways
or in the timing of lights (except to "calm" speeding) in "the system".
Driving at or below the limit is. You're thinking of "the system"
that exists only in yours and other drivers imaginations. The "real
system" has been made a free-for-all... by impatient speeding drivers,
not sloths.

Everyone *does* get where they're going. That they don't get there as
fast as they'd like is not my problem. I get EVERYWHERE as fast as I
like. It's a simple matter of realistic expectations.

> But you, you drive for YOU, the hell with everyone else, that's their
> problem. Your words.

No, spinmeister, those are not my words. 3 of those relative 10 are my
words, the rest are yours.

I was taught what my mother called "cooperative driving". Among many
other things that means nobody should have to alter their speed or path
due to my actions. That does not include speeding drivers/rush hour
traffic.

> You seem to think that waiting multiple cycles is fine, why don't you
> wait multiple cycles? Oh, that's right, it's ok for the _other_ guy to
> wait multiple cycles.

I wait multiple cycles just like everybody else. I should compromise
my safety according to your criteria? You gonna compromise *for* my
safety? Thought not. Why should I extend to you the courtesy you
freely deny me?

> >> The problem with your theory is that it only works in rural nebraska in
> >> 1932. In the real world, where roads are so packed with vehicles, this
> >> build up from cycle to cycle leads to a crushing congestion where the
> >> queue from one light backs up into the one before it.
>
> > My theory works *perfectly* wherever I drive (49 states, I haven't been
> > to AK yet but I suspect it will work there too). I cite my ability to
> > clock +140K miles per year as evidence.
>
> It's causing crushing congestion in chicago every day.

****ing CHICAGO!!! CHICAGO!!!!!! Your ****ty **"system"** is a
****ing JOKE! Your drivers are a ****ing joke! MOVE!!! To LA! If
you can't move, shoot yourself. You are ****ED! Things will never get
better in Chicago as long as your city is controlled by out-and-out
criminals. So things will never get better in Chicago.

> > But let's look at why traffic might "build up from cycle to cycle leads
> > to a crushing congestion". I contend it's caused by too many drivers
> > ignoring the speed limit and arriving at intersections before traffic
> > planners intended.
>
> Speed limit? Speed limit? Under those conditions the speed limit isn't
> even reached. And no, it's about too many people reaching the signal
> because of speed. There are too many people period for the throughput of
> the intersection. The road is filled with vehicles for MILES. Ever see
> lake cook road west bound in the afternoon in chicago's north suburbs?
> The thing is full of vehicles from I94 all the way west to IL53.

So what's my 1 to 2 occasional seconds add to that ****ing mess...?
Little if anything.

> > A car leaving the light at X is planned to arrive at Y in A to B amount
> > of time. Today's driver's habits of excessive acceleration
>
> Here's where you fail, I don't see "excessive acceleration" in any
> proportion beyond a fraction of one percant. I'm usually the fastest off
> the line with a BICYCLE.

No ****... but you live in Chicago!!! A bicycle is the fastest if not
warmest way to get around that ********. I guess I'm referring to: any
place except Chicago.

> > to a
> > certain percentage of velocity above the speed limit and last second
> > braking and not *stopping* before turning right-on-red and cutting
> > people off causing them to brake, et al, is what causes most of the
> > congestion not attributable to the vehicle/space ratio.
>
> Yet, this doesn't happen to me when I am driving. When I am bicycling it
> does, but people are irrational when around bicyclists. With the same
> speed and conditions they don't even attempt it when I am driving. And on
> a bicycle I can just pass them back if I so desire.

I've got thousands upon thousands of miles on bicycle. I would've
qualified for the 1980 Olympics... except I suck. I think smoking had
a lot to do with it.

> > Traffic
> > planners have to expect traffic to obey the law . It doesn't. The
> > problem of congestion is exacerbated by speeding scofflaw impatient
> > drivers, not slower, legal and patient drivers.
>
> The law not reflecting reality is a problem for many reasons. But it
> cannot be causing too many vehicles to reach each light per cycle when
> there a lights every half mile. If you had a traffic light every ten
> miles you might have a point. But in close urban/suburban traffic it's
> simply not possible because each light acts as a gate. Too many reaching
> one would mean too few reaching another and it would average out.
>
> Instead what happens is the lights that are closest together first begin
> backing up into each other.

You live in Chicago...

> >> > You want to "drive other people's vehicles" as well as your own. You
> >> > can only control one at a time, it's best if it's the one your keys
> >> > happen to be in.
>
> >> No. I want the road system to work properly. I want maximum effeciency
> >> out of the roads we have. You on the other case don't care about anyone
> >> besides yourself.

Your "system" can't work properly, you live in Chicago! You poor
*******. Nothing applies in Chicago because there simply aren't enough
roads to handle the traffic and any dip**** with $1000 can buy a light
or stop sign at any intersection he chooses. You poor *******...

> > You "want the road system to work properly"? What are you contributing
> > to that end?
>
> I pay attention. I don't dilly-dally. I get through an intersection
> swiftly. I don't park there like some sloth do. See, on a bicycle,
> getting hit by a car is really going to hurt.

I was hit 3 times in 2 weeks in HI (out of 13 years). Twice in a
crosswalk. Well... they were different crosswalks. And you're right,
it did hurt.

> > I drive the speed limit or thereabouts,
>
> Everything I have written works from the POV of a bicyclist. So you can
> drop your attempt to make this about speed. My top speed in traffic on
> flat ground on a bicycle is 35mph. The lowest arterial speed limit I
> encounter these days is 35mph.
>
> > *always* use my signals
>
> So do I. Even while bicycling. Even use the obscure 'slowing' arm signal
> from time to time.
>
> > and make allowances for speeding scofflaw impatient
> > drivers... constantly.
>
> Obviously not.

How so...?

> > You "want maximum efficiency"? What are you contributing to that end?
> > Besides the "want"?
>
> Do you think asking the same question twice generates different answers?
>
> > The road system is not intended or designed to
> > allow travel from A to B in the shortest possible time.
>
> So then it could be a dirt path. Why isn't it a dirt path?
>
> > Drivers who
> > assume that and force their erroneous belief on traffic are the most
> > influential detriment to that end.
>
> How am I using force from a bicycle? Especially a light weight AL framed
> one.
>
> > I try to maintain a 3 second following distance.
>
> And in the process wait 3 seconds before you move from a stop, wasting
> valuable intersection throughput.
>
> > Other drivers, even though there is rarely anyone behind me,
>
> BINGO. You don't drive in the conditions I am talking about.

Well, yes I do. Nothing I've ever said applies to Chicago. Disregard.

> > That's my problem, not theirs. I adjust, and it's not a problem.
> > Drivers constantly follow me too closely. That's my problem, not
> > theirs. I adjust, and it's not a problem. Drivers sometimes "fall
> > asleep" at lights (usually the jackass that was in such a hurry to get
> > there first, ironically) and I don't make the light. That's my
> > problem, not theirs. I adjust, and it's not a problem. So... I take
> > responsibility over that which I have control. I drive in a safe,
> > legal and courteous manner. If the guy behind me doesn't make the
> > light, that's his problem, not mine.
>
> So you **** over other drivers and just accept it when you are ****ed
> over. Great, you accept the status quo, you are part of the problem.
>
> > Anybody who has a problem with my driving can leave 60 seconds earlier
> > or later and probably avoid me altogether. I "drive my own rig", I
> >suggest you do the same.
>
> You first, **** everyone else.

No, everybody else can go first, I don't care. But if you're behind me
I own the right-of-way over you. I'll "go" if and when I'm sure its
safe... if there aren't any bicycles coming anyway.
-----

- gpsman

On 11 Dec 2005 21:21:52 -0800, "Old Wolf" > wrote:

>Dave Head wrote:
>> Isn't it fun having a high performance car, tho? These guys that
>> deliberately drive slowly just to **** other people off get their
>> asses passed before they know what happened. Since I got
>> my Subaru WRX, I can pass in much shorter distances, when
>> people have decided its OK to start slowing down because there's
>> a no passing zone soon and "He couldn't possibly pass me before
>> the no passing zone" and then I do it. And it doesn't much
>> matter if they try to speed up to keep me from passing them,
>> because I then do it anyway. Having a power to weight ratio as
>> high as this one is, is a truly enjoyable thing.
>
>It's glorious, isn't it. Yesterday, I was driving in a 70kph zone (no
>opportunity to pass), and this retard in a Legacy was in front of me,
>doing about 55kph. We came up to an intersection, and in this
>area the lane splits into two just before the intersection, and
>merges again just after it.
>
>I moved into the spare lane. As soon as the light changed, this
>****** put the hammer down. Luckily my little turbo hatchback
>had no problems passing his weak ass. We got up to 70kph,
>at which point the freak backed off back to about 40kph !
>
>I never exceeded the speed limit but this toad was almost
>invisible in the distance behind me by the time we got to
>the next set of lights a kilometre down the road.

That's outstanding.

Yeah, people invent new ways to be pricks on the road every day, but with the
right car, you don't have to put up with it so often.

DPH

In article . com>, gpsman wrote:

> And... what do you do to make things better for *me*?

Seems that's all you are concerned about.

> I drive as prescribed by law.

Wooptie Do. You seem to think the law is be all and end all. Let me
guess, you are one of those people who thinks it's perfectly ok to screw
over other people and treat them horribly so long as it's legal? I ask
that because you seem so concerned about legality.

>> > I never enter an intersection without ensuring that it's safe to do so.
>>
>> Let me guess, you don't even start looking if it's safe until you reach
>> the head of the queue? A typical habbit of sloth is to be totally
>> unaware of the situation until they reach the front of the queue and then
>> sit there, pausing, to see if it's safe to turn. This either reduces the
>> number of vehicles that can make it through a gap in traffic or results
>> in the gap closing without anyone getting through it.

> You assume a lot.

Well, maybe you should describe with more detail.

>> > I can't (won't) assume that
>> > everybody else will obey the signal that allows me the right-of-way.

>> So you shouldn't drive. Ever.

> Pfffft...

Well, that's true. Who knows, that guy stopped on the cross street might
race into the intersection and T-bone your vehicle.

>> > If that adds a second or two, I think it's worth it.

>> 2 seconds for everyone and suddenly the throughput of the intersection is
>> greatly reduced and soon it takes an hour to go six miles.

> I said "if". That doesn't mean every time or even most of the time.
> It means sometimes.

Again, it's not one person being slothily getting though the
intersection. One person can generally be absorbed, it's countless people
being sloth like. It's just like all the SUVs. It's not one truck's lack
of ability that's the problem, it's that every-other-vehicle being a
truck that results in the problem.

>> > If you don't
>> > agree, leave a few seconds earlier to compensate for me.

>> You don't even understand how the system works. It's not just a couple of
>> seconds. It can be HOURS. It is a throughput issue. Once you reduce the
>> throughput of an intersection the traffic builds up. Eventually it builds
>> up into the previous traffic signal. This results in a crushing
>> congestion.

> I understand how the system as distorted by drivers with your attitude
> *doesn't* work! And I know how it *should* work. A second or two
> delay to prevent a crash is preferable to a delay caused by a crash,
> isn't it?

Preventing a crash? Hardly. How is hanging out in the intersection longer
and not accelerating preventing a crash? If anything it's encouraging
one. How is needing to stop at the head of the queue because the driver
wasn't paying attention preventing a collision? It's not. He could have
been paying attention before then and knew he could go right through
instead of sitting there reducing intersection throughput.

>> > Measuring
>> > travel time in seconds or a couple minutes is your perogative. My
>> > philosophy is "As long as it takes is as long as it takes". I haven't
>> > been in a hurry in over 20 years... and my life is better for it.

>> Yet you have no concept of the problems that sloth causes to the system
>> as a whole. Maybe you enjoy taking a hour to go 6 miles. I don't. Keep in
>> mind that I just want to be able to achieve travel times that are
>> appropiate for a BICYCLE. Remember, my vehicle of choice is a bicycle.
>> How much of hurry do you think I'm in, if I judge it from a bicycling
>> POV?

> I know sloths contribute minimally to problems of the system as a
> whole.

Bull. I've been stuck behind them with the bicycle.

> It's simple percentages. The ratio of sloths/speeders is what,
> maybe 1/1000?

Sloths generally _ARE_ speeders. They exceed the speed limit between lights,
but at lights are horribly slow. They accelerate poorly. There is only one
class of sloth that doesn't brake the speed limit. All the other classes
do, just like everyone else. I've been trying to point out to you that
speed is irrelvant. Do you really think the driver following the 45mph
speed limit to the letter is slowing me down between lights when I am
riding a bicycle? No, they take up all the green arrow time as they yap
on the phone, eventually notice the green arrow has appeared, check 9 times
that the intersection is clear and proceed through at 2.5 mph.

> Don't you live in SoCal?

Chicago.

> There it's probably 1/10,000.
> I don't see how sloths could be the main problem simply because there's
> so few of 'em.

There are lots of sloths in chicago.

>> In Germany, I found people drive much like I do. Hell, I found in WV
>> people drive considerably better than in chicago. In WV I actually saw a
>> woman in a minivan accelerate to get out of the way of the traffic flow
>> to make her turn without interfering with other drivers. That's what I am
>> talking about, driving such that one doesn't impact the system
>> negatively. Driving such that everyone can get where they are going.

> CA surfers used that bull**** when they came to HI: "Where *I* come
> from...".

What's with the CA bull crap? Another diversion like your speed crap?

> You're assuming the motivation of the minivan driver. Irrelevant. You
> assume too much..

What minivan? I didn't mention any minivan. Try to pay attention.

> Speeding interferes with "the system" more than sloths (whose numbers
> barely exist). Speeding is unaccounted for in the design of roadways
> or in the timing of lights (except to "calm" speeding) in "the system".

timing of lights? As a rule the lights in the chicago area are not timed.
They are sensor loop priority type systems. Between driving and bicycling
I have a very good understanding of the programs that the lights are
running and they are not connected to each other in any meaningful way.

> Driving at or below the limit is. You're thinking of "the system"
> that exists only in yours and other drivers imaginations. The "real
> system" has been made a free-for-all... by impatient speeding drivers,
> not sloths.

Again, speed between lights isn't relevant. Please explain how it is when
the problems exist wether I drive or ride a bicycle? Do you think I am
doing 55mph in a 35mph zone on a bicycle or something?

You keep wanting to make this about between block speed, and it has
nothing to do with that. It's about getting through intersections,
maximizing the throughput of the intersection, not between block speed.

It's like you simply do not want to discuss the topic at hand but keep
going for something else.

> Everyone *does* get where they're going. That they don't get there as
> fast as they'd like is not my problem. I get EVERYWHERE as fast as I
> like. It's a simple matter of realistic expectations.

AGAIN, MID BLOCK SPEED IS NOT A FACTOR, BECAUSE IT'S THE SAME WETHER I AM
DRIVING OR BICYCLING. How much of hurry do you think I am in if I am
using a bicycle?

>> But you, you drive for YOU, the hell with everyone else, that's their
>> problem. Your words.

> No, spinmeister, those are not my words. 3 of those relative 10 are my
> words, the rest are yours.

You keep saying if others are delayed, too bad.... seems like you have no
concern what so ever.

> I was taught what my mother called "cooperative driving". Among many
> other things that means nobody should have to alter their speed or path
> due to my actions. That does not include speeding drivers/rush hour
> traffic.

It does not include anyone you disapprove of. How nice. Sounds like the
arguement an LLB would use. Well they are exceeding the posted speed
limit, so I can block them. Ok, mister, should I block everyone who is
violating the law and slow them to my bicycling speed?

>> You seem to think that waiting multiple cycles is fine, why don't you
>> wait multiple cycles? Oh, that's right, it's ok for the _other_ guy to
>> wait multiple cycles.

> I wait multiple cycles just like everybody else. I should compromise
> my safety according to your criteria? You gonna compromise *for* my
> safety? Thought not. Why should I extend to you the courtesy you
> freely deny me?

Not asking for a safety compromise. You aren't gaining any safety by
proceeding through an intersection slower than I can on a bicycle. You
are actually exposing yourself to more danger. You aren't gaingin any
safety by not paying attention until you're at the head of the queue.
There is no gain in those sloth behaviors, only loss of throughput.

>> > My theory works *perfectly* wherever I drive (49 states, I haven't been
>> > to AK yet but I suspect it will work there too). I cite my ability to
>> > clock +140K miles per year as evidence.

>> It's causing crushing congestion in chicago every day.

> ****ing CHICAGO!!! CHICAGO!!!!!! Your ****ty **"system"** is a
> ****ing JOKE! Your drivers are a ****ing joke! MOVE!!! To LA! If
> you can't move, shoot yourself. You are ****ED! Things will never get
> better in Chicago as long as your city is controlled by out-and-out
> criminals. So things will never get better in Chicago.

They don't call it c(r)ook county for nothing. But that doesn't change
the fact that sloth drivers are causing congestion, and now you've seem
to have realized it.

>> > But let's look at why traffic might "build up from cycle to cycle leads
>> > to a crushing congestion". I contend it's caused by too many drivers
>> > ignoring the speed limit and arriving at intersections before traffic
>> > planners intended.

>> Speed limit? Speed limit? Under those conditions the speed limit isn't
>> even reached. And no, it's about too many people reaching the signal
>> because of speed. There are too many people period for the throughput of
>> the intersection. The road is filled with vehicles for MILES. Ever see
>> lake cook road west bound in the afternoon in chicago's north suburbs?
>> The thing is full of vehicles from I94 all the way west to IL53.

> So what's my 1 to 2 occasional seconds add to that ****ing mess...?
> Little if anything.

So your view is 'it's all ****ed up, so I'll just make it worse'. Great,
you and few thousand others. That's the real reason things will never
improve, your mentality right there.

>> > A car leaving the light at X is planned to arrive at Y in A to B amount
>> > of time. Today's driver's habits of excessive acceleration

>> Here's where you fail, I don't see "excessive acceleration" in any
>> proportion beyond a fraction of one percant. I'm usually the fastest off
>> the line with a BICYCLE.

> No ****... but you live in Chicago!!! A bicycle is the fastest if not
> warmest way to get around that ********. I guess I'm referring to: any
> place except Chicago.

Then why the hell are you arguing with my view then?

>> > Other drivers, even though there is rarely anyone behind me,
>>
>> BINGO. You don't drive in the conditions I am talking about.
>
> Well, yes I do. Nothing I've ever said applies to Chicago. Disregard.

THen this is at an end.

Brent P wrote: <brevity snip>
> gpsman wrote:

> > I drive as prescribed by law.
>
> Wooptie Do. You seem to think the law is be all and end all. Let me
> guess, you are one of those people who thinks it's perfectly ok to screw
> over other people and treat them horribly so long as it's legal? I ask
> that because you seem so concerned about legality.

Your argument is unsupportable.

Compliance with the law is how the system is intended and designed to
work. The intent is to speed and smooth traffic flow and maximize
throughput and safety. With 90% of drivers using their "own" systems
traffic gets more ****ed up than if everyone followed the same system.

Excessive speeding is the ultimate and most common MFFY behavior that
****s up traffic and demonstrates a lack of concern for other drivers,
not my compliance with the law. I don't treat people horribly using
the law as my sword. I always yield the right-of-way but you
misinterpret that as ****ing over the drivers behind me. Well, chances
are very good, they're excessive speeders. They have no right to speed
therefore they probably have no right to be in their position behind
me. I have every right to obey the law and let traffic sort itself
out.

> Again, it's not one person being slothily getting though the
> intersection. One person can generally be absorbed, it's countless people
> being sloth like. It's just like all the SUVs. It's not one truck's lack
> of ability that's the problem, it's that every-other-vehicle being a
> truck that results in the problem.

When it's that many people being "sloth-like"... it's not them, it's
you. And trucks are how everything you own got to the store so you
could buy it; Your toilet, your home, your underwear and socks. You'd
bitch about trucks if they were going "too fast" and you bitch about
trucks because they're going too slow. Complaining about trucks is
like complaining about snow.

> Preventing a crash? Hardly. How is hanging out in the intersection longer
> and not accelerating preventing a crash? If anything it's encouraging
> one. How is needing to stop at the head of the queue because the driver
> wasn't paying attention preventing a collision? It's not. He could have
> been paying attention before then and knew he could go right through
> instead of sitting there reducing intersection throughput.

I don't know WTF you're talking about! Any notion that I commit those
actions, endorse or encourage them is entirely your misinterpretation
of something I've posted, I'm sure. But I can't imagine what...

> > I know sloths contribute minimally to problems of the system as a
> > whole.
>
> Bull. I've been stuck behind them with the bicycle.

Bull. Run your cadence up to 110 and get around 'em.

> Sloths generally _ARE_ speeders. They exceed the speed limit between lights,
> but at lights are horribly slow. They accelerate poorly. There is only one
> class of sloth that doesn't brake the speed limit. All the other classes
> do, just like everyone else. I've been trying to point out to you that
> speed is irrelvant. Do you really think the driver following the 45mph
> speed limit to the letter is slowing me down between lights when I am
> riding a bicycle? No, they take up all the green arrow time as they yap
> on the phone, eventually notice the green arrow has appeared, check 9 times
> that the intersection is clear and proceed through at 2.5 mph.

You exagerrate.

> There are lots of sloths in chicago.

Sloth is a subjective term.

> What minivan? I didn't mention any minivan. Try to pay attention.

My mistake then.

> > Driving at or below the limit is. You're thinking of "the system"
> > that exists only in yours and other drivers imaginations. The "real
> > system" has been made a free-for-all... by impatient speeding drivers,
> > not sloths.
>
> Again, speed between lights isn't relevant. Please explain how it is when
> the problems exist wether I drive or ride a bicycle? Do you think I am
> doing 55mph in a 35mph zone on a bicycle or something?

This isn't rec.bicycle. This is rec.auto. Traffic as it applies to
bikes is often not the same as for motorized vehicles. If it's the
same in your experience then there's too much traffic to make a
difference. I rode my bike all over Oahu and in town I could easily
mirror or outpace traffic.

> You keep wanting to make this about between block speed, and it has
> nothing to do with that. It's about getting through intersections,
> maximizing the throughput of the intersection, not between block speed.

Excessive speeders arrive at intersections before planned. Traffic
naturally slows as some turn whether in an intersection or not.
Traffic backs up as people slow to turn. The unexpected number of
vehicles at certain points exceeds the road capacity. Again, when
there are *so many* sloths... it's time to reevaluate *your*
perspective.

> You keep saying if others are delayed, too bad.... seems like you have no
> concern what so ever.

That's because I don't. And neither do you. If you'll notice... your
complaints are ALL about your travel problems. I don't delay traffic.
I KRETP and drive at or about the limit. If that delays someone that's
their tough ****.

> > I was taught what my mother called "cooperative driving". Among many
> > other things that means nobody should have to alter their speed or path
> > due to my actions. That does not include speeding drivers/rush hour
> > traffic.
>
> It does not include anyone you disapprove of. How nice. Sounds like the
> arguement an LLB would use. Well they are exceeding the posted speed
> limit, so I can block them. Ok, mister, should I block everyone who is
> violating the law and slow them to my bicycling speed?

Exagerration to the ridiculous. Irrelevant.

> >> You seem to think that waiting multiple cycles is fine, why don't you
> >> wait multiple cycles? Oh, that's right, it's ok for the _other_ guy to
> >> wait multiple cycles.
>
> > I wait multiple cycles just like everybody else. I should compromise
> > my safety according to your criteria? You gonna compromise *for* my
> > safety? Thought not. Why should I extend to you the courtesy you
> > freely deny me?
>
> Not asking for a safety compromise. You aren't gaining any safety by
> proceeding through an intersection slower than I can on a bicycle. You
> are actually exposing yourself to more danger. You aren't gaingin any
> safety by not paying attention until you're at the head of the queue.
> There is no gain in those sloth behaviors, only loss of throughput.

WHO says I proceed through intersections at bicycle speed? WHO says I
don't pay attention...? You're imagining and exagerrating again.

> They don't call it c(r)ook county for nothing. But that doesn't change
> the fact that sloth drivers are causing congestion, and now you've seem
> to have realized it.

Duh. The volume of traffic in Chicago is the most influential factor,
not sloths. But you can't vent your anger at "volume" so you choose
imaginary sloths. If that makes you feel better, and it obviously
doesn't, have at it.

> So your view is 'it's all ****ed up, so I'll just make it worse'. Great,
> you and few thousand others. That's the real reason things will never
> improve, your mentality right there.

You misinterpret and exagerrate and imagine...

But you have my sincerest sympathy... living in Chicago...
-----

- gpsman

gpsman wrote:
> Brent P wrote: <brevity snip>
> > gpsman wrote:
>
> > > I drive as prescribed by law.
> >
> > Wooptie Do. You seem to think the law is be all and end all. Let me
> > guess, you are one of those people who thinks it's perfectly ok to screw
> > over other people and treat them horribly so long as it's legal? I ask
> > that because you seem so concerned about legality.
>
> Your argument is unsupportable.
>
> Compliance with the law is how the system is intended and designed to
> work. The intent is to speed and smooth traffic flow and maximize
> throughput and safety. With 90% of drivers using their "own" systems
> traffic gets more ****ed up than if everyone followed the same system.

I agree so far.

>
> Excessive speeding is the ultimate and most common MFFY behavior that
> ****s up traffic and demonstrates a lack of concern for other drivers,
> not my compliance with the law.

Strongly disagree. A speeding driver concerns me not one bit, so long
as he's driving in compliance with the law in all other respects.
Improper lane use, lack of signaling, failure to properly yield right
of way, improper merging, improper lane changes, ALL have a far greater
negative impact on traffic flow than speeding.

nate

On 10 Dec 2005 21:40:40 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:

>How about those drivers that, rather than using the bike lane (if
>available) pull as far LEFT in a lane as they can, when making a RIGHT
>turn? In Cali, you're supposed to use the bike lane for right turns,
>so that through traffic can keep moving, but many people driving
>SUVs/pickups think they're driving a 40' semi and block through traffic
>completely to make their right.

Those might best be called Sloth Control Freaks - people who use Sloth
as a tool to exercise what little power they have over others. Like
the teenaged punk with the baggy pants and the sideways baseball cap
who walks as S-L-O-W-L-Y as he possibly can through the crosswalk
because he knows he's making all the car drivers wait. He works at
some menial job such as a stockboy, and thus has no power over other
people in his real life, so when he does have an opportunity to
exercise some modicum of control he takes full advantage of it. This
is why he stays in the traffic lane and slows down to 5 MPH before
making his turn - he wants to make you wait as long as he possibly
can. It's a pathetic little power trip from a pathetic, ultimately
powerless little man.

Bottom line, when you see someone using Sloth as a weapon of control,
you shouold feel pity, not anger.

N8N wrote:
> gpsman wrote:

> > Compliance with the law is how the system is intended and designed to
> > work. The intent is to speed and smooth traffic flow and maximize
> > throughput and safety. With 90% of drivers using their "own" systems
> > traffic gets more ****ed up than if everyone followed the same system.
>
> I agree so far.
>
> >
> > Excessive speeding is the ultimate and most common MFFY behavior that
> > ****s up traffic and demonstrates a lack of concern for other drivers,
> > not my compliance with the law.
>
> Strongly disagree. A speeding driver concerns me not one bit, so long
> as he's driving in compliance with the law in all other respects.
> Improper lane use, lack of signaling, failure to properly yield right
> of way, improper merging, improper lane changes, ALL have a far greater
> negative impact on traffic flow than speeding.
-----

Well, maybe... I guess. Speeding drivers are no concern for me either
but I feel they're far more likely to commit the offenses you mentioned
in addition to speeding than is the driver operating at or about the
limit. My perspective is the law *is* the system. Operational
deviations... we could argue about which is the most egregious 'til the
cows come home.

But it seems to me that "where" the offenses are commited is as equally
important as the offenses themselves. *Excessive* speeding puts
drivers "where" their actions cause the most disruption, where traffic
planners haven't planned for them to arrive. They prevent other
drivers from pulling out as well as turning in front of them. Their
frequent lane changes to avoid slower traffic does nothing to
contribute (and is not *intended* to contribute) to the "flow" of any
vehicle except their own.

The fact that "they're" not delaying any traffic "behind" them is
misconstrued as the optimal driving technique. **** the driver that
wants to make a left turn in front of them. He's going in the opposite
direction! My actions have no effect on them!!! **** the driver who
may want to pull out IN FRONT OF ME!?!? The goddamn NERVE! **** HIM!
**** the driver who may want to pull out and turn in the opposite
direction, he can wait because I need to get down to the next traffic
control device so I can catch and bitch about the people I couldn't
prevent from being in front of me. **** the driver merging onto the
highway. I need to drive the 85th percentile speed in the R lane so I
can get around all these LLB's and MFFY's in front of me.

THEN... they fault slower (law abiding) drivers as MFFY's and the
problem with traffic. The premise that "I'm in a hurry and the 85th
percentile is going X mph and we have our own ad hoc system so you're
****ing up traffic because you're in compliance with the lawful system
and get the **** out of my way you goddamn MFFY sloth"... couldn't be
*more* MFFY... or ridiculous.

But I agree that most people commit your cited offenses as a matter of
course and it ****s up traffic no matter how fast or slow they're
going.
-----

- gpsman

"gpsman" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> N8N wrote:
> > gpsman wrote:
>
> > > Compliance with the law is how the system is intended and designed to
> > > work. The intent is to speed and smooth traffic flow and maximize
> > > throughput and safety. With 90% of drivers using their "own" systems
> > > traffic gets more ****ed up than if everyone followed the same system.
> >
> > I agree so far.
> >
> > >
> > > Excessive speeding is the ultimate and most common MFFY behavior that
> > > ****s up traffic and demonstrates a lack of concern for other drivers,
> > > not my compliance with the law.
> >
> > Strongly disagree. A speeding driver concerns me not one bit, so long
> > as he's driving in compliance with the law in all other respects.
> > Improper lane use, lack of signaling, failure to properly yield right
> > of way, improper merging, improper lane changes, ALL have a far greater
> > negative impact on traffic flow than speeding.
> -----
>
> Well, maybe... I guess. Speeding drivers are no concern for me either
> but I feel they're far more likely to commit the offenses you mentioned
> in addition to speeding than is the driver operating at or about the
> limit. My perspective is the law *is* the system. Operational
> deviations... we could argue about which is the most egregious 'til the
> cows come home.
>
> But it seems to me that "where" the offenses are commited is as equally
> important as the offenses themselves. *Excessive* speeding puts
> drivers "where" their actions cause the most disruption, where traffic
> planners haven't planned for them to arrive. They prevent other
> drivers from pulling out as well as turning in front of them. Their
> frequent lane changes to avoid slower traffic does nothing to
> contribute (and is not *intended* to contribute) to the "flow" of any
> vehicle except their own.
>
> The fact that "they're" not delaying any traffic "behind" them is
> misconstrued as the optimal driving technique. **** the driver that
> wants to make a left turn in front of them. He's going in the opposite
> direction! My actions have no effect on them!!! **** the driver who
> may want to pull out IN FRONT OF ME!?!? The goddamn NERVE! **** HIM!
> **** the driver who may want to pull out and turn in the opposite
> direction, he can wait because I need to get down to the next traffic
> control device so I can catch and bitch about the people I couldn't
> prevent from being in front of me. **** the driver merging onto the
> highway. I need to drive the 85th percentile speed in the R lane so I
> can get around all these LLB's and MFFY's in front of me.
>

I've always maintained that speeding is the fundamental of MFFY driving, so
I agree with all of the above. Well said, and very representative of a lot
of those who cry "sloth" here on rec.autos.driving.