"No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tampa

On 2011-02-03, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. > wrote:
> "Brent" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 2011-02-02, Jordon > wrote:
>>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>>> In >,
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> ...you need to never drive again.
>>>>>
>>>>> Huh. And to think that I've never been in an accident, can't
>>>>> remember the last time I've received a citation, have ridden
>>>>> a motorcycle across Montana averaging 100 MPH twice, am member
>>>>> of the Iron Butt Club, work in management for a trucking
>>>>> company and have been driving for over 40 years.
>>>>>
>>>>> Who would have thunk it.
>>>>
>>>> Yet you tell us you can't check your rearview mirrors while passing 3
>>>> other cars.
>>>
>>> Now why do you want to go and lie like that? I never said that
>>> and you know I never said that. I check my mirrors constantly.
>>> All three of them. But I'll never look at one of them for more
>>> than about a second. Don't need to.
>>
>> You clearly need to considering you have other drivers coming up on you
>> such that you either unware of their presence prior to that point or
>> such that you were unable to estimate their speed. My guess is that you
>> just don't care about anyone but yourself so you pull out knowing full
>> well that the other person will have to brake to avoid crashing into
>> you. And that's how many 'never had an accident' drivers are. They are
>> magoos. They are accident free because other people compensate for them
>> and dumb luck.

> Except that if they are 1/4 to 1/2 mile ahead, they aren't relevant. The
> immediate concern is whether or not there is a closing in vehicle 2 to 3
> seconds behind the merge point to the passing lane.

2-3 seconds? isn't that the same thing claimed as "reaction time" to
justify the absurdly slow speed limits? Why on earth would you want to
move in front of someone that tightly, if that is indeed "reaction
time"?

Never mind that it is still very hypocritical to force someone else to
alter their driving under the claim that you'd have to alter yours. It
strikes me with all the absurdity of the people who have trouble passing
bicyclists.

> The secondary concern is
> if there are any vehicles a bit further than that. A vehicle that is 1/4 to
> 1/2 mile behind has more than enough reaction time to adjust their speed,
> rather than keeping constant speed and suddenly slowing down as they begin
> to tailgate.

In other words, me first, **** you. Here you'll pretend again that I am
the fastest driver on the road, I usually am not and many times, one of
the slowest. Other than the emotional "thrill" of annoying other people
and possibly ****ing them off, I don't see the point of driving the way
you do. You can a) start the pass, accelerate (as my driver's ed teacher
SCREAMED at me to do), and complete the pass before they reach you or
b) wait, and pass behind them. You choose c) meander out into the left
lane and force them to brake as you pass with 5mph or less margin
assuming you are going 'the speed of traffic' and as posted, refuse to
accelerate.

On 2011-02-03, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. > wrote:
> "Brent" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 2011-02-03, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. > wrote:
>>> "Brent" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On 2011-02-02, Alan Baker > wrote:
>>>>> In article >,
>>>>> Jordon > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>> > In >,
>>>>>> > > wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >> Arif Khokar wrote:
>>>>>> >>> On 2/1/2011 11:28 AM, Jordon wrote:
>>>>>> >>>> Brent wrote:
>>>>>> >>>>> On 2011-02-01, > wrote:
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>> You must have eagle eyes.
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> Set your mirrors properly.
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>> When you're going 70 and someone is
>>>>>> >>>>>> approaching you at 90, it doesn't take very long for that
>>>>>> >>>>>> little
>>>>>> >>>>>> speck in the mirror to turn into the SUV on your rear bumper
>>>>>> >>>>>> and
>>>>>> >>>>>> when you first see it in your mirror you have no way of knowing
>>>>>> >>>>>> it's going 90.
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> It's not difficult. You're just not paying attention.
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> No doubt about it. I'm now convinced. You're an idiot.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> Wow, what a retort! I mean, are you not even capable of seeing a
>>>>>> >>> car
>>>>>> >>> 800
>>>>>> >>> feet behind you? Are you even qualified to drive?
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Where did this 800 feet come from? Let's try a half a mile
>>>>>> >> (that's 2640 feet) and you want to pass three vehicles.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > At half a mile, it's going to take him 90 seconds to get to you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And at a half a mile, in a mirror that's 6" across, you
>>>>>> can tell the difference between 90 MPH and 110?
>>>>>
>>>>> Not instantly, but in time to decide whether or not I should start a
>>>>> pass before or after that vehicle.
>>>>
>>>> Exactly. Track them for a few seconds and it becomes clear how fast they
>>>> are closing. When I estimate a 110 it might be a 115 or 100 but either
>>>> way I know to wait.
>>>>
>>> No way that's going to happen. Remember: signal, mirrors, over the
>>> shoulder
>>> glance, go when safe (SMOG). So as I approach the vehicle I am about to
>>> pass--with my mirrors adjusted in the BGE adjustment--I am going to SMOG
>>> then complete the merge if it's safe. At most, that's going to take about
>>> 1
>>> second. Surely you do not suggest I should follow behind the vehicle I
>>> want
>>> to start passing for several seconds just because the other driver might
>>> be
>>> going faster?
>>
>> I'm sorry you are you are lazy and rude. Here's how it works:
>>
>> http://www.blip.tv/file/719780/
>>
>> I believe your claims of difficulty, like Jordon's initial claims of
>> difficulty and impossibility are as his were, simply a mask for selfish,
>> rude, MFFY driving.
>>
> Actually, it is more accurate that you are the MFFY wanting everyone to stay
> out of your way even if you are 1/4 to 1/2 mile behind them, so you can
> speed on by without anyone in your way.

Where did I write that? Nowhere. I stated quite clearly that you have
the choice. 1) complete the pass before that driver reaches you. 2)
wait for that driver to pass by and pass behind him. Either is fine. I
practice it myself because it is courteous and maximizes flow and
smoothness.

Anyway, you are avoiding the issue. What is so difficult about being
courteous?
Was I delayed in the video? Seriously, why do you have such a problem
with simple courtsey? It's like the people who brush pass bicyclists on
empty roads, they feel it's just too much effort to move over and the
bicyclist is an asshole for using his road.

> And as for your change of discussion topic from DUI checkpoints to
> LLB--well, you still lose the discussion about LLB.

You need arguments, not declarations. Sadly you are lacking in arguments
on all subject matter and resort to other tactics.

On 2/2/2011 10:33 PM, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
> "Brent" > wrote in message

>> Exactly. Track them for a few seconds and it becomes clear how fast they
>> are closing. When I estimate a 110 it might be a 115 or 100 but either
>> way I know to wait.
>>
> No way that's going to happen. Remember: signal, mirrors, over the
> shoulder glance, go when safe (SMOG).

That's not correct. It's MSM. Check your Mirrors, then Signal, then
Maneuver (change lanes).

> So as I approach the vehicle I am
> about to pass--with my mirrors adjusted in the BGE adjustment--I am
> going to SMOG then complete the merge if it's safe.

There's no point in signaling if you're not going to be able to complete
your lane change.

> At most, that's
> going to take about 1 second. Surely you do not suggest I should follow
> behind the vehicle I want to start passing for several seconds just
> because the other driver might be going faster?

You can either wait for the other vehicle to pass before starting your
pass, or start your pass anyway and speed up a bit to complete your pass
sooner. Since you're the one making the maneuver, the onus is on you to
make adjustments not to interfere with other traffic by making them
change speed or direction because of your planned maneuver.

On Feb 2, 11:21*pm, Brent > wrote:
>
> Never mind that it is still very hypocritical to force someone else to
> alter their driving under the claim that you'd have to alter yours.

ba-da boom.
-----

- gpsman

In article >,
Jordon > wrote:

> Alan Baker wrote:
>
> >> What I would do in the situation where I'm passing 3 cars on a road
> >> where my visibility is limited is:
> >>
> >> 1. Complete my pass extra quickly.
> >>
> >> 2. If someone does come up and is going to be up to my bumper before the
> >> pass is complete, move over.
> >
> > This part wasn't relevant?
>
> Not to my reply which was only a response to the sentence:
> "you need to never drive again". I've already stated that
> when the vehicle behind you, is *way* behind you, it can
> be difficult to estimate his speed. Do you want me to beat
> a dead horse?

But he fairly shortly *won't* be way behind you...

....which you'd know except you some think you need to keep watching the
cars in your near vicinity to the exclusion of all else.

>
> > It wasn't relevant that your driving experience leads you to the
> > kneejerk response that you might need to defend yourself with deadly
> > force against people you've ****ed off?
>
> I had a good friend that triggered someones road rage and
> was murdered over it. I see road rage every day. Some people
> think they own the road and that it's everyone's duty to get
> out of their way. It's no kneejerk response at all. I refuse
> to be injured or killed because someone else never learned
> what courteous driving is and thinks that a two ton shell of
> steel turns them into superman. I've never had to pull it out
> of the glove box. I hope I never have to.

I'm sure you're the cause of quite a bit of anger, because you clearly
have no idea what "courteous driving" even means.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>

In article >,
"Daniel W. Rouse Jr." > wrote:

> >>> >> Where did this 800 feet come from? Let's try a half a mile
> >>> >> (that's 2640 feet) and you want to pass three vehicles.
> >>> >
> >>> > At half a mile, it's going to take him 90 seconds to get to you.
> >>>
> >>> And at a half a mile, in a mirror that's 6" across, you
> >>> can tell the difference between 90 MPH and 110?
> >>
> >> Not instantly, but in time to decide whether or not I should start a
> >> pass before or after that vehicle.
> >
> > Exactly. Track them for a few seconds and it becomes clear how fast they
> > are closing. When I estimate a 110 it might be a 115 or 100 but either
> > way I know to wait.
> >
> No way that's going to happen. Remember: signal, mirrors, over the shoulder
> glance, go when safe (SMOG). So as I approach the vehicle I am about to
> pass--with my mirrors adjusted in the BGE adjustment--I am going to SMOG
> then complete the merge if it's safe. At most, that's going to take about 1
> second. Surely you do not suggest I should follow behind the vehicle I want
> to start passing for several seconds just because the other driver might be
> going faster?

But that "mirrors" was preceded by a "mirrors" only a few seconds before
it, or at least should have been. That's the point.

You should already know by the time you get to the point of passing what
the situation is...

....ALL THE WAY AROUND YOU. That includes the situation with respect to
traffic approaching from behind.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>

In article >,
Jordon > wrote:

> Brent wrote:
> > On 2011-02-02, > wrote:
> >> Alan Baker wrote:
> >>> In >,
> >>> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Alan Baker wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> ...you need to never drive again.
> >>>>
> >>>> Huh. And to think that I've never been in an accident, can't
> >>>> remember the last time I've received a citation, have ridden
> >>>> a motorcycle across Montana averaging 100 MPH twice, am member
> >>>> of the Iron Butt Club, work in management for a trucking
> >>>> company and have been driving for over 40 years.
> >>>>
> >>>> Who would have thunk it.
> >>>
> >>> Yet you tell us you can't check your rearview mirrors while passing 3
> >>> other cars.
> >>
> >> Now why do you want to go and lie like that? I never said that
> >> and you know I never said that. I check my mirrors constantly.
> >> All three of them. But I'll never look at one of them for more
> >> than about a second. Don't need to.
> >
> > You clearly need to considering you have other drivers coming up on you
> > such that you either unware of their presence prior to that point or
> > such that you were unable to estimate their speed.
>
> I've got at least two dozen JJ Keller training videos on my
> desk at the moment and there are several of them that include
> proper use of mirrors. There is nothing you can teach me about
> being a professional driver of a commercial motor vehicle. You
> are trying to teach grandma to suck eggs.

What a pity you appear to have learned so little from them...

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>

On Feb 2, 9:16*pm, gpsman > wrote:
> On Feb 2, 11:21*pm, Brent > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Never mind that it is still very hypocritical to force someone else to
> > alter their driving under the claim that you'd have to alter yours.
>
> ba-da boom.
> *-----
>
> - gpsman

Yep, to paraphrase Scott's sig "If you try to force someone to alter
legal course or speed _you_ are the MFFY".

Harry K

On 2/3/2011 12:39 AM, Harry K wrote:

> Yep, to paraphrase Scott's sig "If you try to force someone to alter
> legal course or speed _you_ are the MFFY".

The precondition on that statement is that you have to be the one making
a maneuver (like a lane change, turn, etc.). Just because you're
approaching slower traffic and have to slow down because you have to
wait for faster traffic to pass you first or have to speed up while
passing in order to keep them from catching up to you before you
complete your pass doesn't make traffic behind you MFFY. But if you
pull out to pass and make faster traffic behind you slow down, then
you're the one who's MFFY.

On Feb 3, 9:27*am, Arif Khokar > wrote:
> On 2/3/2011 12:39 AM, Harry K wrote:
>
> > Yep, to paraphrase Scott's sig "If you try to force someone to alter
> > legal course or speed _you_ are the MFFY".
>
> The precondition on that statement is that you have to be the one making
> a maneuver (like a lane change, turn, etc.). *Just because you're
> approaching slower traffic and have to slow down because you have to
> wait for faster traffic to pass you first or have to speed up while
> passing in order to keep them from catching up to you before you
> complete your pass doesn't make traffic behind you MFFY. *But if you
> pull out to pass and make faster traffic behind you slow down, then
> you're the one who's MFFY.

May I suggest you guys use one of the many actual versions of the
purported "litmus test" for your argument?

"If your maneuver forces another driver who has the right-of-way to
alter course or speed, what you did was probably MFFY."

"Has the ROW" is unrelated to "legal".
-----

- gpsman