Right Lane Impatience

Brent P wrote:
> In article .com>, gpsman wrote:
>
> > Well then... it should be pretty easy to describe your method of
> > discerning how the other drivers didn't stop for lunch too, dimwit.
>
> Because their speed didn't allow for it. Had they stopped, I would have
> remained ahead of them.
-----
LOL! Plus... you're a fast eater, huh?
-----

gpsman

Brent P wrote:
> In article .com>, gpsman wrote:
> > Matthew Russotto wrote: <relevance snip>
> >>
> >> I can pass drivers, continue for a while, stop for lunch, and then
> >> get back out on the road and pass some of those same drivers (who
> >> didn't stop). They probably figure my extra speed didn't gain me anything...
> > -----
> >
> > Oh, yeah. Sure you do. Entirely plausible. What a hero...
>
> I have. Stopped for gas some snacks, got back on the road and passed the
> same semis I had earlier a few moments later.

I had the same car pass me IIRC 4 times in the same day. I was on a
west bound coast to coast trip leaving out of somewhere west of
Chicago. I was doing the usual posted (60) plus pretty well with the
flow for what little traffic there was back then (60s). That car was
doing in excess of 80 and was also on at least a full days drive. I
couldn't see what he thought he was gaining. Yes, if he kept at it
steady he would have but he was making way too many stops to average
any more than I was.

Harry K

Harry K wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
> > In article .com>, gpsman wrote:
> > > Matthew Russotto wrote: <relevance snip>
> > >>
> > >> I can pass drivers, continue for a while, stop for lunch, and then
> > >> get back out on the road and pass some of those same drivers (who
> > >> didn't stop). They probably figure my extra speed didn't gain me anything...
> > > -----
> > >
> > > Oh, yeah. Sure you do. Entirely plausible. What a hero...
> >
> > I have. Stopped for gas some snacks, got back on the road and passed the
> > same semis I had earlier a few moments later.
>
> I had the same car pass me IIRC 4 times in the same day. I was on a
> west bound coast to coast trip leaving out of somewhere west of
> Chicago. I was doing the usual posted (60) plus pretty well with the
> flow for what little traffic there was back then (60s). That car was
> doing in excess of 80 and was also on at least a full days drive. I
> couldn't see what he thought he was gaining. Yes, if he kept at it
> steady he would have but he was making way too many stops to average
> any more than I was.
>
> Harry K

So, in essence he maintained the 65 mph average speed while making the
stops he needed/wanted?

What if he'd made those stops and travelled at 65 mph? Discussions
like this make me think I should drive faster...

Dave

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 07:57:59 -0500, Shawn Hirn >
wrote:

>Its as silly as those idiots who pass a slower moving car only to get to
>the same red light that the slow moving car reaches. Do these idiots
>really need to get to the red light two seconds sooner than the other
>drivers? I don't think so.

Less than one percent of the time does this happen, yet there are
plenty of morons who think it must happen every time. Nice to have a
lot of company, huh shaun.

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 22:30:17 -0600,
(Brent P) wrote:

>> Places like
>> Chicago still have many, many older signals which are strictly
>> timer-controlled - which is how Brent can work the timing to his
>> advantage and hit several green lights in a row.
>
>These lights do have sensors but their programing is more or
>less fixed and I believe the 4 lights are somehow tied together in
>programing since they seem to always operate in the same sequence.

It would be pretty easy to coordinate multiple sensor-controlled
traffic signals in a "mesh network" and optimize traffic flow across
an entire city. I would LOVE to have a chance to write the control
software for that system... There are a lot of improvements that need
to be made.

>> Unfortunately, many
>> new immigrants to SoCal who comes from places like Chicago fail to
>> realize that their old tricks no longer work, and these Sloth Coasters
>> end up doing nothing but clogging the road.
>
>There is one sensor driven light that really annoys the hell out of me.
>T intersection. The stem of the T is a residential road and just about
>anything will trip the sensor on it and the main road is given a red
>signal at all times of day.

The opposite can be equally annoying:

One place I lived (back in IL) was on a street at the base of a T
intersection. The signal was sensor-controlled, but would often make
traffic coming out of the base of the T wait for SEVERAL MINUTES
before it would allow that traffic to proceed. It was almost always
faster to make a right on red and then do a U-turn a little ways down
the block than to wait for that left turn arrow to come on.

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 15:34:38 -0600, DTJ > wrote:

>On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 07:57:59 -0500, Shawn Hirn >
>wrote:
>
>>Its as silly as those idiots who pass a slower moving car only to get to
>>the same red light that the slow moving car reaches. Do these idiots
>>really need to get to the red light two seconds sooner than the other
>>drivers? I don't think so.
>
>Less than one percent of the time does this happen, yet there are
>plenty of morons who think it must happen every time. Nice to have a
>lot of company, huh shaun.

Hee hee!

And even if the light is red, if getting to the red light 2 seconds
sooner means that I get the pole position at the head of the queue
instead of being stuck behind some Sloth, then it's well worth the
"wasted" gasoline and brake linings that it will cost me.

"DTJ" > wrote in message
>
>>Its as silly as those idiots who pass a slower moving car only to get to
>>the same red light that the slow moving car reaches.
>
> Less than one percent of the time does this happen,

Cite?

Brent P wrote:
> In article .com>, gpsman wrote:
> > Matthew Russotto wrote: <relevance snip>
> >>
> >> I can pass drivers, continue for a while, stop for lunch, and then
> >> get back out on the road and pass some of those same drivers (who
> >> didn't stop). They probably figure my extra speed didn't gain me anything...
> > -----
> >
> > Oh, yeah. Sure you do. Entirely plausible. What a hero...
>
> I have. Stopped for gas some snacks, got back on the road and passed the
> same semis I had earlier a few moments later.
-----
Assuming constant speeds in a vacuum etc. because I no do arithmetic
well good...

Semi speed = 60. Yours = 75. Stop = 15 minutes. The semis will be 15
miles ahead. At the 15 mph speed differential it'll obviously be AN
HOUR before you catch those trucks.

Figure 30 mintes for lunch and TWO HOURS.

Your "few moments" is about an hour to me.
-----

- gpsman

Scott en Aztlán wrote:

> It would be pretty easy to coordinate multiple sensor-controlled
> traffic signals in a "mesh network" and optimize traffic flow across
> an entire city.

Some cities pay a lot of money for computer software to do that..

> I would LOVE to have a chance to write the control software for
> that system... There are a lot of improvements that need to be made.

My home town has the best system ever. The "central city" is a
square about 2 km to a side, and the bounding "four avenues"
are all 6-lane roads (+ turning lanes on both sides).
There are about 10 north-south streets and 10 east-west ones,
eight of which are one-way (2 north, 2 east, 2 west, 2 south).
There are also a few diagonal streets and 2 roads that follow
the river.

The one-way streets all have fixed timings (so that once you
get one green, you get to the Avenue without having to stop).
The others are just sensor timings.

It works so well - any time of day or night, you can breeze through
the city centre. It's faster to get from one suburb to another via
the city centre, than to go a more direct route, usually !

Unfortunately, this level of genius seems to have escaped the
planners of the city I live in now, which is traffic chaos half the
time.

"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
>
> In article .com>, gpsman
> wrote:
>> Matthew Russotto wrote: <relevance snip>
>>>
>>> I can pass drivers, continue for a while, stop for lunch, and then
>>> get back out on the road and pass some of those same drivers (who
>>> didn't stop). They probably figure my extra speed didn't gain me
>>> anything...
>> -----
>>
>> Oh, yeah. Sure you do. Entirely plausible. What a hero...
>
> I have. Stopped for gas some snacks, got back on the road and passed the
> same semis I had earlier a few moments later.

I often pass the same vehicles twice on one trip. Most of those vehicles I
pass twice are not semis, either. Like someone else wrote, pass drivers,
continue for a while, stop for lunch and then get back out on the road and
pass some of those same drivers (who didn't stop). They probably figure my
extra speed didn't gain me anything...

That literally happens every long road trip I take. I usually only pass the
same vehicles twice, though. I only stop about every four hours when I'm
driving, where I eat, re-fuel and visit the mens room. So the SECOND time I
pass those drivers, it will be hours before I stop again and by then I'll be
so far ahead of them that I won't pass them a third time, even if they are
going as far as I am, in the same direction. That is, by my next fuel stop,
I have time to eat and re-fuel, etc. and get back on the road before (the
drivers I've passed twice earlier) even get to the same exit I stopped at.

Again it's about average speed. If you keep your speed up and don't make
too many stops, you will reach your destination significantly faster.
That's specifically why I only stop every four hours. I'd stretch that to
five or six hours between stops if the car would allow me to, but I've never
owned a car with that kind of range. -Dave