"No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tampa

On 2011-02-05, Harry K > wrote:
> mile back and have to brake before hitting someone, perhaps you should
> learn a bit about operation of a vehicle.

Harry, just lifting on the throttle is braking. You're just using the
engine to do it instead of the brakes. I find it amusing you attempt to
mask your lack of argument and end up only displaying greater ignorance.

On Feb 5, 7:54*pm, Brent > wrote:
> On 2011-02-05, Harry K > wrote:
>
> > mile back and have to brake before hitting someone, perhaps you should
> > learn a bit about operation of a vehicle.
>
> Harry, just lifting on the throttle is braking. You're just using the
> engine to do it instead of the brakes. *I find it amusing you attempt to
> mask your lack of argument and end up only displaying greater ignorance.

So you are going to quite "braking" nonsense? Fat chance.

Harry K

On Feb 5, 7:44*pm, Brent > wrote:
> On 2011-02-05, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. > wrote:
>
> > "Brent" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On 2011-02-05, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. > wrote:
>
> > [snip...]
>
> >>> Making them brake right away is NOT in safety, that's cutting them off.
>
> >> So you turn in front of them with more distance and do it slow enough
> >> they have to brake.
>
> > In which case, they have to brake, even if the left turn is too slow! Surely
> > you do not intend for them to ram the turning vehicle at speed???
>
> What are you babbling about? Of course they brake to avoid the
> collision. THe point is that it is considered unacceptable to waddle
> along into the path of other traffic and force them to brake in every
> traffic situation.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> Turning on a green ball traffic signal such that through traffic would
> >>> have
> >>> to brake before a collision is NOT in safety. The determination as to
> >>> whether or not the vehicle changing lanes made an unsafe lane change
> >>> often
> >>> depends on the speed of the vehicle that collided, the brake skid marks
> >>> (if
> >>> any) showing any attempt to evade, etc.
>
> >> Lane change or turn the law is the same. What is different is the
> >> cultural interpetation of fault. When someone makes a slothy left turn
> >> the left turner is believed to be at fault automatically until proven
> >> otherwise. When someone makes a slothly lane change, it's believed that
> >> the person already in the lane is at fault until proven otherwise. The
> >> problem with that is that people like yourself, jordon, and harry hide
> >> behind this upside down cultural notion to intentionally annoy other
> >> drivers. The trouble is, the law is the same for both lane changes and
> >> turning.
> > If I change lanes and someone hits me 2 seconds later, I could very well be
> > at fault for an unsafe lane change. If someone hits me after being a half
> > mile away, they should have their license revoked and be taken to the
> > nearest county mental health facility. See the difference? One doesn't allow
> > for enough reaction time, the other is more than enough time to see me and
> > make any necessary speed adjustments.
>
> So I ask again, do you expect on coming traffic with time to see you and
> make necessary speed adjustments to do so when you make left turns, or
> pull out on to major roads? Do you always drive in a manner that relies
> on other people avoiding the collision your driving has made possible?
>
> >>> But your complaints about a vehicle 1/4, 1/2, or whole mile behind are
> >>> without any basis in safety or in the interest of traffic flow save for
> >>> that
> >>> YOU don't want a vehicle in the passing lane going any slower than YOU
> >>> want
> >>> to. That, once again, clearly is MFFY.
>
> >> Not my complaints, I've had drivers like yourself do your moves
> >> anywhere from 1/2 mile to 1/2 foot in front of me. that was your buddy
> >> Jordon who claimed approaching vehicles more than few feet away could
> >> not be detected.
> > There's a big difference. Again, 1/2 mile away the obligation is on you to
> > make the adjustment in time, you have more than enough reaction time. But
> > 1/2 foot away from you is clearly unsafe, that driver would be at fault
> > though you should at least slam on the brakes to try to slow down.
>
> So do you pass on two lane roads when the on coming driver has time to
> make adjustments for you? I want to know where else in your driving you
> enter another driver's path and expect them to make adjustment for you
> while you make no adjustment at all. How about merging on to an
> interstate? Are you one of those drivers who insists on merging at
> 20-30mph below the traffic speed and expects everyone else to compensate
> for them? If not, why not? If right lane traffic has time to react to
> you, why wouldn't you merge at 20mph below the traffic speed? (please do
> not say minimum speed of the highway, because in many place that
> minimum speed is 20-30 mph below the speed of traffic)
>
> >> What is the question here is the law. Harry wanted a law. So I
> >> demonstrated that the law reads the same for lane changes as it does for
> >> turns or any other move. Your and Harry's logic fails the common sense
> >> test on the turns. Law if anything needs to be consistent. If it is
> >> discourteous or unsafe to make someone in an approaching lane brake for
> >> a slothy turn then it is the same for a slothy lane change and passing
> >> move.
>
> > You can't understand that one applies to thru traffic lanes and the other
> > applies to traffic turning and thus crossing an intersection?
>
> With safety does not mean "make that other guy brake or dodge me"
> anywhere. That's the point.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

No, the point is in your "left turn" wet dream arguments is that it is
_against the law_ while the "never pull out if you can see a car 10
miles behind you" is a _courtesy_, not law. If you a granted the
courtesy fine, if not, you have no basis to demand it.

Harry K

"Brent" > wrote in message
...
> On 2011-02-05, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. > wrote:
>> "Brent" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 2011-02-05, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. > wrote:
>>
>> [snip...]
>>
>>>> Making them brake right away is NOT in safety, that's cutting them off.
>>>
>>> So you turn in front of them with more distance and do it slow enough
>>> they have to brake.
>>>
>> In which case, they have to brake, even if the left turn is too slow!
>> Surely
>> you do not intend for them to ram the turning vehicle at speed???
>
> What are you babbling about? Of course they brake to avoid the
> collision. THe point is that it is considered unacceptable to waddle
> along into the path of other traffic and force them to brake in every
> traffic situation.
>
Except for that most turning traffic is so damn afraid of getting rammed by
the thru traffic they turn as quickly as possible while the oncoming car is
starting to speed up and near miss the turning vehicle.

>>>> Turning on a green ball traffic signal such that through traffic would
>>>> have
>>>> to brake before a collision is NOT in safety. The determination as to
>>>> whether or not the vehicle changing lanes made an unsafe lane change
>>>> often
>>>> depends on the speed of the vehicle that collided, the brake skid marks
>>>> (if
>>>> any) showing any attempt to evade, etc.
>>>
>>> Lane change or turn the law is the same. What is different is the
>>> cultural interpetation of fault. When someone makes a slothy left turn
>>> the left turner is believed to be at fault automatically until proven
>>> otherwise. When someone makes a slothly lane change, it's believed that
>>> the person already in the lane is at fault until proven otherwise. The
>>> problem with that is that people like yourself, jordon, and harry hide
>>> behind this upside down cultural notion to intentionally annoy other
>>> drivers. The trouble is, the law is the same for both lane changes and
>>> turning.
>
>> If I change lanes and someone hits me 2 seconds later, I could very well
>> be
>> at fault for an unsafe lane change. If someone hits me after being a half
>> mile away, they should have their license revoked and be taken to the
>> nearest county mental health facility. See the difference? One doesn't
>> allow
>> for enough reaction time, the other is more than enough time to see me
>> and
>> make any necessary speed adjustments.
>
> So I ask again, do you expect on coming traffic with time to see you and
> make necessary speed adjustments to do so when you make left turns, or
> pull out on to major roads? Do you always drive in a manner that relies
> on other people avoiding the collision your driving has made possible?
>
Proximity is a major factor. If they are 1/2 mile or more away, yes, I do
expect them to make the adjustments. Whether or not I drive like that
depends on current traffic conditions. For example, if I am merging one lane
to the left in order to avoid the vehicle entering via a collision merge
style onramp, then I will merge left and if the vehicle 1/4 or more mile
ahead of me has to brake, tough $hit.

>
>
>
>>>> But your complaints about a vehicle 1/4, 1/2, or whole mile behind are
>>>> without any basis in safety or in the interest of traffic flow save for
>>>> that
>>>> YOU don't want a vehicle in the passing lane going any slower than YOU
>>>> want
>>>> to. That, once again, clearly is MFFY.
>>>
>>> Not my complaints, I've had drivers like yourself do your moves
>>> anywhere from 1/2 mile to 1/2 foot in front of me. that was your buddy
>>> Jordon who claimed approaching vehicles more than few feet away could
>>> not be detected.
>
>> There's a big difference. Again, 1/2 mile away the obligation is on you
>> to
>> make the adjustment in time, you have more than enough reaction time. But
>> 1/2 foot away from you is clearly unsafe, that driver would be at fault
>> though you should at least slam on the brakes to try to slow down.
>
> So do you pass on two lane roads when the on coming driver has time to
> make adjustments for you? I want to know where else in your driving you
> enter another driver's path and expect them to make adjustment for you
> while you make no adjustment at all. How about merging on to an
> interstate? Are you one of those drivers who insists on merging at
> 20-30mph below the traffic speed and expects everyone else to compensate
> for them? If not, why not? If right lane traffic has time to react to
> you, why wouldn't you merge at 20mph below the traffic speed? (please do
> not say minimum speed of the highway, because in many place that
> minimum speed is 20-30 mph below the speed of traffic)
>
I never pass on two lane roads. I insist on merging at the speed limit and
resent when faster traffic is not keeping left, expecting me to either speed
up or lose my gap.

>>> What is the question here is the law. Harry wanted a law. So I
>>> demonstrated that the law reads the same for lane changes as it does for
>>> turns or any other move. Your and Harry's logic fails the common sense
>>> test on the turns. Law if anything needs to be consistent. If it is
>>> discourteous or unsafe to make someone in an approaching lane brake for
>>> a slothy turn then it is the same for a slothy lane change and passing
>>> move.
>>>
>>
>> You can't understand that one applies to thru traffic lanes and the other
>> applies to traffic turning and thus crossing an intersection?
>
> With safety does not mean "make that other guy brake or dodge me"
> anywhere. That's the point.
>
Again, proximity is a major factor in that.

"Brent" > wrote in message
...
> On 2011-02-05, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. > wrote:
>> "Brent" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 2011-02-05, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. > wrote:
>>>> "Brent" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> [snip...]
>>>>
>>>>> I expect courtsey, and that means someone making a move into my path
>>>>> not
>>>>> force me to brake. I don't force other people to brake. If completing
>>>>> the pass would require me going faster than I'd like to go I don't
>>>>> start
>>>>> the pass.
>>>>>
>>>> But when you refer to 1/4, 1/2 or more distance away from you, it's
>>>> just
>>>> baseless whining and proof you are being MFFY, not just expecting
>>>> courtesy.
>>>
>>> Not at all. I don't pull in front of people who are closing on me at
>>> such a rate that they will be forced to brake if they are that distance
>>> behind me. I'm not an asshole who has to be the decider of speed like
>>> you and Harry. That driver a 1/2 mile back that is closing so
>>> rapidly that I cannot complete a pass will be past me in a few seconds.
>>>
>> The could be 1/2 mile away at 65mph or 1/2 mile away at 110mph, it makes
>> a
>> huge difference.
>
> If they won't catch up to me before I complete the pass I pass right
> away. If they will, I wait. To you it doesn't matter because you want to
> pass right away regardless of other traffic. You expect them to adjust
> to your desire.
>
And if their proximity is far enough away, they must adjust. They cannot
continue at their speed until they are tailgating the vehicle in front of
them, especially if the vehicle in front of them is actually passing just
not at the MFFY speeder's chosen higher speed.

>>>>> Let me demonstrate this another way. You are on a two lane road. You
>>>>> want to pass the slow driver in front of you. A fair distance away
>>>>> there
>>>>> is another vehicle in the oncoming lane. It looks like he is going
>>>>> faster than the posted speed limit and faster than you approve of.
>>>>> To pass the slow poke and get back over without forcing the on
>>>>> oncoming driver to brake you'll have to drive a speed you are
>>>>> unconfortable with. Do you still pass at what consider a comfortable
>>>>> speed and rely on that oncoming driver to brake or do you wait to
>>>>> pass?
>>>
>>>> Totally asinine question--the correct answer is obvious it is wait to
>>>> pass.
>>>> Of course, the MFFY would change lanes, floor it, and then whip their
>>>> vehicle back into the lane in both a show of aggression to the vehilce
>>>> just
>>>> passed and also scaring the crap out of the driver they near-missed.
>>>
>>> There's nothing asinine about it. It demonstrates the logical
>>> inconsistency of the view you, Harry, and Jordon have. The oncoming
>>> driver has more than enough distance to brake so you can complete the
>>> pass at your chosen speed and not whip around anyone. He just has to
>>> react to your use of the lane, the one he already occupied before you
>>> began passing, and slow down so you can complete the pass in perfect
>>> comfort. And it's your comfort that matters, not the desires or
>>> feelings of the person you are forcing to brake. He's just MFFY,
>>> because you got there first so the lane is yours and how dare he bully
>>> you out of it before you are good and ready. It is nothing less than you
>>> expect of the drivers already in the passing lane going the same
>>> direction as you. You expect them to reduce speed so you can complete
>>> your pass at the speed you've chosen and thus the same should be true on
>>> two lane roads of oncoming drivers provided you pull out with enough
>>> space that they can safely slow to avoid a collision with you.
>
>> It isn't a logical inconsistency because on a multilane road the traffic
>> is
>> going the SAME direction, while your two lane road scenario proposes to
>> force a collision hazard with ONCOMING traffic. It's an entirely
>> different
>> scenario that you are just trying to make the same, but it is not the
>> same.
>
> No it's not. THe oncoming driver has just as much time to adjust to you
> in this situation as the faster passing driver does in the other. You
> are moving into the lane he already occupies and you demand he adjust to
> you.
>
What part of oncoming traffic do you simply not understand? Passing zones
allow a driver to drive on the wrong side of the road for a limited distance
and it is entirely the responsibility of the passing vehicle to get out of
the wrong side of the road before a serious collision may occur. Passing in
the same direction isn't driving on the wrong side of the road, by the way.

>> More to the point, if the oncoming traffic has to brake it is clearly an
>> unsafe pass simply because it is technically driving on the wrong side of
>> the road, except for where the dashed yellow line may allow for a passing
>> zone (but some MFFY's even pass over the double-yellow line, of course).
>
> Of course the pass is legal and sight lines are long. They would have to
> be for this situation. It is moving in front of other traffic that has
> time to adjust. Same as in the same direction. But now you say if they
> have to brake it's unsafe? The only difference here is how blame is
> assigned culturally should the other driver fail to adjust and a crash
> results. The expectation on others to avoid the collision is held
> constant in my example.
>
If oncoming traffic has to brake it is unsafe, period. If thru traffic has
to brake then speed and proximity are both major factors. It really is as
simple as that.

On Feb 5, 10:54*pm, Brent > wrote:
>
> Harry, just lifting on the throttle is braking. You're just using the
> engine to do it instead of the brakes. *I find it amusing you attempt to
> mask your lack of argument and end up only displaying greater ignorance.

Ba-da boom.
-----

- gpsman

"gpsman" > wrote in message
...
On Feb 5, 10:54 pm, Brent > wrote:
>
> Harry, just lifting on the throttle is braking. You're just using the
> engine to do it instead of the brakes. I find it amusing you attempt to
> mask your lack of argument and end up only displaying greater ignorance.

Ba-da boom.

* Yep, he's wrong because lifting the foot of the throttle is considered
coasting and the engine actually does minimal braking unless one is using a
cruise control system that decelerates or they also shift down a gear with
the transmission.

On Feb 6, 8:15*am, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr." >
wrote:
> "gpsman" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Feb 5, 10:54 pm, Brent > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Harry, just lifting on the throttle is braking. You're just using the
> > engine to do it instead of the brakes. I find it amusing you attempt to
> > mask your lack of argument and end up only displaying greater ignorance..
>
> Ba-da boom.
>
> * Yep, he's wrong because lifting the foot of the throttle is considered
> coasting and the engine actually does minimal braking unless one is using a
> cruise control system that decelerates or they also shift down a gear with
> the transmission.

Never deny Brent the right to take outrageous flights of fancy to
attempt to justify his stupid beliefs.

Harry K

On 2/6/2011 11:15 AM, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:

> * Yep, he's wrong because lifting the foot of the throttle is considered
> coasting and the engine actually does minimal braking unless one is
> using a cruise control system that decelerates or they also shift down a
> gear with the transmission.

Your car must have a pretty bad transmission that doesn't keep the
torque converter locked when letting up on the accelerator. My car will
slow down due to engine braking at highway speeds in top gear.

On 2011-02-06, Harry K > wrote:
> On Feb 5, 7:54*pm, Brent > wrote:
>> On 2011-02-05, Harry K > wrote:
>>
>> > mile back and have to brake before hitting someone, perhaps you should
>> > learn a bit about operation of a vehicle.
>>
>> Harry, just lifting on the throttle is braking. You're just using the
>> engine to do it instead of the brakes. *I find it amusing you attempt to
>> mask your lack of argument and end up only displaying greater ignorance.
>
> So you are going to quite "braking" nonsense? Fat chance.

Harry, you still haven't answered my questions. That's not surprising
that the man who complains about thread drift intentionally creates it
to avoid questions.