"No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tampa

On 2011-02-08, Harry K > wrote:

> Here is a little experiment for you. Tell 50 drivers you meet at
> random that you braked for something. How many do you think are going
> to take that as "letting up on the accelerator?

So your tanget relies on you being as ignorant as the american public at
large who doesn't even know more than push and steer. Considering you as
ignorant as the american public at large is a greater insult than I
would have even considered, but if you want it that way.

> I clearly remember you even stating it as "slaming on the brake" in
> the past. Perhaps you can explain how one 'slams on the gas pedal"
> when you want engine braking.

Harry resorts to making stuff up. Considering your past dishonesty I'd
like to see a google archive link.

> You can twist and turn and redefine the common meaning of words all
> you want but everyone in these threads knows _exactly what you meant.

I am an engineer Harry. I use their proper technical definitions.

On 2011-02-08, Harry K > wrote:
> On Feb 8, 6:10*am, gpsman > wrote:
>> On Feb 7, 9:25*am, Brent > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > LOL.... So you and the lame boys are all upset I didn't dedicate a
>> > couple paragraphs spelling out the mechanics to you? LOL.
>>
>> All amused.
>>
>> Here we are in a "driving" related group and you're attempting to
>> argue that "lifting off the throttle" constitutes "braking".
>>
>> Apparently with no sense of embarrassment.
>>
>> Could one of you nitwits at least provide us with the correct term for
>> "applying the brakes"...?

I'm surprised you aren't bringing a sheet metal "brake", a type of
carriage, or a dynamometer (brake) into the discussion, sir troll.

Braking is applying a force that retards motion. I'm sorry you cannot
understand that. Pushing your feet through your vehicle's rusted floor
to the pavement would also be braking. For the purposes of this thread
branch how one slows is irrelevant.

> In Brent's case it is "anything that will divert attention from
> another of my stupidities"
> As in "having to brake because I caught up to someone"

Nice projection Harry. I noticed how you started these little snipes to
divert from every other issue where you could no longer defend your
argument. Such as how your definition of 'safety', where the other
driver can adjust to your move, is considered absurd elsewhere.

Not to mention the absurdity of trying to justify yourself based on the
degree of action required of the other driver.

BTW, a video for you: slow ass turning...

http://blip.tv/file/4740683

How this intersection works when people accelerate properly:

http://blip.tv/file/3771594

Notice that the lead driver in the first video did not make the green
signal for the second light. The one I was immediately behind was slower
than snot and could have been passed by a bicyclist.

On 2/8/2011 10:36 AM, Jordon wrote:
> Arif Khokar wrote:

>> I guess you're one of those marginally competent drivers who switches
>> his signal on and relies on other enablers to let you in instead of one
>> of those competent drivers who actually checks for traffic and finds a
>> gap first before signaling.
>
> Enablers?
>
> You are obviously not a courteous driver that gives someone the
> space when they ask for it.

If you're a competent driver, then you don't need to ask for space. A
competent driver has no trouble finding space *first* by *observing*
traffic around them and finding a gap, *then* signaling, and *then* move
into that gap.

> Otherwise you'd be accused of being
> an enabler. I bet you get a little thrill when you step on the
> gas after seeing a turn signal in front of you.

You'd lose that bet.

On 02/08/2011 10:36 AM, Jordon wrote:
> Arif Khokar wrote:
>> Jordon wrote:
>>
>>> I suppose you've never experienced anyone speeding up when
>>> you put your turn signal on?
>>
>> I guess you're one of those marginally competent drivers who switches
>> his signal on and relies on other enablers to let you in instead of one
>> of those competent drivers who actually checks for traffic and finds a
>> gap first before signaling.
>
> Enablers?
>
> You are obviously not a courteous driver that gives someone the
> space when they ask for it. Otherwise you'd be accused of being
> an enabler. I bet you get a little thrill when you step on the
> gas after seeing a turn signal in front of you.

A good driver never needs to "ask" for space. Possible exception: slow
speed bumper-to-bumper traffic (following distance typically less than
one car length.) I can't think of any other exceptions to that rule, at
least not for a typical four-wheeler.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

"Arif Khokar" > wrote in message
news
> On 2/8/2011 10:36 AM, Jordon wrote:
>> Arif Khokar wrote:
>
>>> I guess you're one of those marginally competent drivers who switches
>>> his signal on and relies on other enablers to let you in instead of one
>>> of those competent drivers who actually checks for traffic and finds a
>>> gap first before signaling.
>>
>> Enablers?
>>
>> You are obviously not a courteous driver that gives someone the
>> space when they ask for it.
>
> If you're a competent driver, then you don't need to ask for space. A
> competent driver has no trouble finding space *first* by *observing*
> traffic around them and finding a gap, *then* signaling, and *then* move
> into that gap.
>
Competent driver or not, that gap just doesn't exist in bumper to bumper
traffic with a lane reduction. Someone has to make the gap, which means
letting someone in. That often means having to merge into a gap with two
headlights in the side mirror (using the BGE mirror adjustment) which means
just barely cutting off that driver even if they've let that minimal size
gap.

[snip...]

On Feb 8, 4:15*pm, Brent > wrote:
> On 2011-02-08, Harry K > wrote:
>
>
>

<snip another attempt to divert attention>

Did you try that little experiment? Find anyone who agreed with your
asinine "braking" definition?

Harry K

On Feb 8, 6:15*pm, Nate Nagel > wrote:
> On 02/08/2011 10:36 AM, Jordon wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Arif Khokar wrote:
> >> Jordon wrote:
>
> >>> I suppose you've never experienced anyone speeding up when
> >>> you put your turn signal on?
>
> >> I guess you're one of those marginally competent drivers who switches
> >> his signal on and relies on other enablers to let you in instead of one
> >> of those competent drivers who actually checks for traffic and finds a
> >> gap first before signaling.
>
> > Enablers?
>
> > You are obviously not a courteous driver that gives someone the
> > space when they ask for it. Otherwise you'd be accused of being
> > an enabler. I bet you get a little thrill when you step on the
> > gas after seeing a turn signal in front of you.
>
> A good driver never needs to "ask" for space. *Possible exception: slow
> speed bumper-to-bumper traffic (following distance typically less than
> one car length.) *I can't think of any other exceptions to that rule, at
> least not for a typical four-wheeler.
>
> nate
>
> --
> replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I can show you an intersection in Spokane WA where _everyone_ requests
and gets the consideration. It involves one of heaviest traffic load
ones there where freeway traffic coming off has to merge and if not
going straight through has to either imediately get one lane over to
the left or 3 lanes over to the right in one block if they want to
turn. And that while vehicles on the through street have to get 2
lanes to the left or one lane to the right in the same distance. Oddly
the locals use the 'my turn, your turn' approach to the problem and it
works out just fine.

Harry K

On 2/8/2011 10:37 PM, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
> "Arif Khokar" > wrote in message
> news
>> On 2/8/2011 10:36 AM, Jordon wrote:

>>> You are obviously not a courteous driver that gives someone the
>>> space when they ask for it.
>>
>> If you're a competent driver, then you don't need to ask for space. A
>> competent driver has no trouble finding space *first* by *observing*
>> traffic around them and finding a gap, *then* signaling, and *then*
>> move into that gap.
>>
> Competent driver or not, that gap just doesn't exist in bumper to bumper
> traffic with a lane reduction. Someone has to make the gap, which means
> letting someone in.

Not necessarily. A gap could be created by a driver not paying
attention when traffic moves forward or simply by merging in front of a
truck (which tend to keep their distance from vehicles in front of them
in those situations).

On 2/9/2011 12:15 AM, Harry K wrote:
> On Feb 8, 6:15 pm, Nate > wrote:

>> A good driver never needs to "ask" for space. Possible exception: slow
>> speed bumper-to-bumper traffic (following distance typically less than
>> one car length.) I can't think of any other exceptions to that rule, at
>> least not for a typical four-wheeler.

> I can show you an intersection in Spokane WA where _everyone_ requests
> and gets the consideration. It involves one of heaviest traffic load
> ones there where freeway traffic coming off has to merge and if not
> going straight through has to either imediately get one lane over to
> the left or 3 lanes over to the right in one block if they want to
> turn. And that while vehicles on the through street have to get 2
> lanes to the left or one lane to the right in the same distance. Oddly
> the locals use the 'my turn, your turn' approach to the problem and it
> works out just fine.

That's something like a zipper merge. That helps keep traffic moving in
situations like lane closures and poorly designed interchanges like the
one you mention above.

"Arif Khokar" > wrote in message
om...
> On 2/8/2011 10:37 PM, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
>> "Arif Khokar" > wrote in message
>> news
>>> On 2/8/2011 10:36 AM, Jordon wrote:
>
>>>> You are obviously not a courteous driver that gives someone the
>>>> space when they ask for it.
>>>
>>> If you're a competent driver, then you don't need to ask for space. A
>>> competent driver has no trouble finding space *first* by *observing*
>>> traffic around them and finding a gap, *then* signaling, and *then*
>>> move into that gap.
>>>
>> Competent driver or not, that gap just doesn't exist in bumper to bumper
>> traffic with a lane reduction. Someone has to make the gap, which means
>> letting someone in.
>
> Not necessarily. A gap could be created by a driver not paying attention
> when traffic moves forward or simply by merging in front of a truck (which
> tend to keep their distance from vehicles in front of them in those
> situations).

Yes, but the point still stands for drivers that are paying attention and
keeping as close of a following distance as possible so no one else can get
it--eventually, someone has to leave a gap or traffic completely stops.