Clump

Garth Almgren wrote:
> Around 1/13/2005 11:35 AM, wrote:
> >
> > Brent P wrote:
> >
> >> <snip>
> >
> > I think passing traffic should jump into the _right_ lane,
>
> Mistake number one, nobody should "jump" anywhere. It should be a
smooth
> lane change. If you're "jumping" from lane to lane, you're doing
> something wrong.

Its just an expression...

>
> > the more dangerous lane,
>
> In your mind only, my na=EFve padawan.

No, its true. The left lane doesn't have near the hazards in it, or in
the immediate transition to the edge, that the right lane does.


> > and be there only as long as it takes to pass.
>
> <Willy Wonka> Wait a minute. Strike that. Reverse it.
>
> The law says Keep Right, not Keep Left. If you really want to Keep
Left,
> I suggest driving in England sometime.

Big whoop. The law says drive 55 mph, or 65 mph, or whatever, too -
nobody follows that either.

> >>You don't jump back and forth. You pass, then you finish passing
and
> >>return to the right.
> >
> >
> > And that is jumping back and forth, back and forth, etc.
>
> No, that's proper passing.

Which still creates a whole pile of lane changes.

> >>This is very simple stuff.
> >
> > Then why can't you figure it out?
>
> He has. You're the only one around here that hasn't.

I'm the only one that _has_ figured it out.

> Why do you have a hard time understanding "Keep Right Except to
Pass?"
> It's not a difficult concept, nor is it difficult to practice.

Its virtually impossible to practice most of the time. Just about time
you're ready to pass someone "properly" there's someone sitting on your
left rear bumper, preventing you from doing it - unless you're willing
to add 10 - 15 mph to an already-illegal speed to do it.

In article .com>, wrote:
>
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article .com>,
> wrote:
>>
>> > Brent P wrote:
>>
>> >> You don't seem to understand what the convention is.
>>
>> > I understand it - I just don't think it makes a lot of sense.
>>
>> So you think having passing traffic weave through traffic is better or
>> are you one of the Claybrook followers who believe that the weaving is
>> safer because it 'slows speeders'?

> I think passing traffic should jump into the _right_ lane, the more
> dangerous lane, and be there only as long as it takes to pass. That
> way, most of the traffic would be in the left lane, and _away_ from the
> cars that are entering the highway (slowly), and exiting the highway
> (slowly) and of course not encountering the various roadside hazards of
> cops with stopped victims, hitchikers, stalled cars, and of course have
> a better chance with the deer.

So you are a claybrook follower that believes in making the roads more
dangerous to slow people down. Another zealot who wants everyone to drive
slower than he does. Another left lane blocker, merge impared driver, a
person who obviously doesn't get out enough to have encountered broken
down vehicles and cops stopped on the LEFT shoulder. Someone too
inexperienced to understand that merging is made more dangerous when
vehicles are entering the lane being merged into. Another driver who
thinks the whole of road engineering needs to be rewritten around his
personal convience instead of the proven methods that make the roads work
best for _ALL_ users. You should go hang out with carl taylor.

>> > How is what you describe going to cut down on weaving thru traffic? If
>> > someone is keeping right, and then jumping into the left lane every
>> > time they catch another car that is going slower, and then jumping back
>> > into the right lane again, how is that not weaving? Its continuous
>> > weaving. Back, forth. Back, forth. Back, forth. Ad nasueum...
>>
>> You don't jump back and forth. You pass, then you finish passing and
>> return to the right.

> And that is jumping back and forth, back and forth, etc.

Only to someone ignorant such as yourself.

>>Some time in the future you'll pass someone else.

> And jump back and forth again.

2 miles later... not every other car as you propose.

>> But the frequency of changing lanes is greatly reduced.

> As compared to...?

To your insane idea

>>This is very simple stuff.

> Then why can't you figure it out?

You're the claybrook follower here, not I.

In article .com>, wrote:
>
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article .com>,
> wrote:
>>
>> > Brent P wrote:
>>
>> >> You don't seem to understand what the convention is.
>>
>> > I understand it - I just don't think it makes a lot of sense.
>>
>> So you think having passing traffic weave through traffic is better or
>> are you one of the Claybrook followers who believe that the weaving is
>> safer because it 'slows speeders'?

> I think passing traffic should jump into the _right_ lane, the more
> dangerous lane, and be there only as long as it takes to pass. That
> way, most of the traffic would be in the left lane, and _away_ from the
> cars that are entering the highway (slowly), and exiting the highway
> (slowly) and of course not encountering the various roadside hazards of
> cops with stopped victims, hitchikers, stalled cars, and of course have
> a better chance with the deer.

So you are a claybrook follower that believes in making the roads more
dangerous to slow people down. Another zealot who wants everyone to drive
slower than he does. Another left lane blocker, merge impared driver, a
person who obviously doesn't get out enough to have encountered broken
down vehicles and cops stopped on the LEFT shoulder. Someone too
inexperienced to understand that merging is made more dangerous when
vehicles are entering the lane being merged into. Another driver who
thinks the whole of road engineering needs to be rewritten around his
personal convience instead of the proven methods that make the roads work
best for _ALL_ users. You should go hang out with carl taylor.

>> > How is what you describe going to cut down on weaving thru traffic? If
>> > someone is keeping right, and then jumping into the left lane every
>> > time they catch another car that is going slower, and then jumping back
>> > into the right lane again, how is that not weaving? Its continuous
>> > weaving. Back, forth. Back, forth. Back, forth. Ad nasueum...
>>
>> You don't jump back and forth. You pass, then you finish passing and
>> return to the right.

> And that is jumping back and forth, back and forth, etc.

Only to someone ignorant such as yourself.

>>Some time in the future you'll pass someone else.

> And jump back and forth again.

2 miles later... not every other car as you propose.

>> But the frequency of changing lanes is greatly reduced.

> As compared to...?

To your insane idea

>>This is very simple stuff.

> Then why can't you figure it out?

You're the claybrook follower here, not I.

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 15:12:28 -0600, (Brent
P) wrote:

>In article .com>, wrote:
>>
>> Brent P wrote:
>>> In article .com>,
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Brent P wrote:
>>>
>>> >> You don't seem to understand what the convention is.
>>>
>>> > I understand it - I just don't think it makes a lot of sense.
>>>
>>> So you think having passing traffic weave through traffic is better or
>>> are you one of the Claybrook followers who believe that the weaving is
>>> safer because it 'slows speeders'?
>
>> I think passing traffic should jump into the _right_ lane, the more
>> dangerous lane, and be there only as long as it takes to pass. That
>> way, most of the traffic would be in the left lane, and _away_ from the
>> cars that are entering the highway (slowly), and exiting the highway
>> (slowly) and of course not encountering the various roadside hazards of
>> cops with stopped victims, hitchikers, stalled cars, and of course have
>> a better chance with the deer.
>
>So you are a claybrook follower that believes in making the roads more
>dangerous to slow people down. Another zealot who wants everyone to drive
>slower than he does. Another left lane blocker, merge impared driver, a
>person who obviously doesn't get out enough to have encountered broken
>down vehicles and cops stopped on the LEFT shoulder. Someone too
>inexperienced to understand that merging is made more dangerous when
>vehicles are entering the lane being merged into. Another driver who
>thinks the whole of road engineering needs to be rewritten around his
>personal convience instead of the proven methods that make the roads work
>best for _ALL_ users. You should go hang out with carl taylor.

Well, I think _you_ ought to be limited to about 20 mph until you regain some
perspective. Its just traffic, not a religion.

>>> > How is what you describe going to cut down on weaving thru traffic? If
>>> > someone is keeping right, and then jumping into the left lane every
>>> > time they catch another car that is going slower, and then jumping back
>>> > into the right lane again, how is that not weaving? Its continuous
>>> > weaving. Back, forth. Back, forth. Back, forth. Ad nasueum...
>>>
>>> You don't jump back and forth. You pass, then you finish passing and
>>> return to the right.
>
>> And that is jumping back and forth, back and forth, etc.
>
>Only to someone ignorant such as yourself.

Only took you 10 posts or so to get to the namecalling, I see.

>>>Some time in the future you'll pass someone else.
>
>> And jump back and forth again.
>
>2 miles later... not every other car as you propose.

2 miles later happens in less than 2 minutes on most roads. Multiply that by
all the people driving like you, that are hopping back and forth, back and
forth just to satisfy some archaic notion, based on a law that was repealed
about 35 years ago. Every overt act, such as accelerating or decelerating,
lane changing, etc. carries a potential to go wrong and cause an accident.
That's why they should be minimized. If you can drive from 1 coast to the other
without changing speed or changing lanes, you should. Other than that,
minimize the changes you have to make.
>
>>> But the frequency of changing lanes is greatly reduced.
>
>> As compared to...?
>
>To your insane idea

Just plain wrong.

>>>This is very simple stuff.
>
>> Then why can't you figure it out?
>
>You're the claybrook follower here, not I.

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 15:12:28 -0600, (Brent
P) wrote:

>In article .com>, wrote:
>>
>> Brent P wrote:
>>> In article .com>,
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Brent P wrote:
>>>
>>> >> You don't seem to understand what the convention is.
>>>
>>> > I understand it - I just don't think it makes a lot of sense.
>>>
>>> So you think having passing traffic weave through traffic is better or
>>> are you one of the Claybrook followers who believe that the weaving is
>>> safer because it 'slows speeders'?
>
>> I think passing traffic should jump into the _right_ lane, the more
>> dangerous lane, and be there only as long as it takes to pass. That
>> way, most of the traffic would be in the left lane, and _away_ from the
>> cars that are entering the highway (slowly), and exiting the highway
>> (slowly) and of course not encountering the various roadside hazards of
>> cops with stopped victims, hitchikers, stalled cars, and of course have
>> a better chance with the deer.
>
>So you are a claybrook follower that believes in making the roads more
>dangerous to slow people down. Another zealot who wants everyone to drive
>slower than he does. Another left lane blocker, merge impared driver, a
>person who obviously doesn't get out enough to have encountered broken
>down vehicles and cops stopped on the LEFT shoulder. Someone too
>inexperienced to understand that merging is made more dangerous when
>vehicles are entering the lane being merged into. Another driver who
>thinks the whole of road engineering needs to be rewritten around his
>personal convience instead of the proven methods that make the roads work
>best for _ALL_ users. You should go hang out with carl taylor.

Well, I think _you_ ought to be limited to about 20 mph until you regain some
perspective. Its just traffic, not a religion.

>>> > How is what you describe going to cut down on weaving thru traffic? If
>>> > someone is keeping right, and then jumping into the left lane every
>>> > time they catch another car that is going slower, and then jumping back
>>> > into the right lane again, how is that not weaving? Its continuous
>>> > weaving. Back, forth. Back, forth. Back, forth. Ad nasueum...
>>>
>>> You don't jump back and forth. You pass, then you finish passing and
>>> return to the right.
>
>> And that is jumping back and forth, back and forth, etc.
>
>Only to someone ignorant such as yourself.

Only took you 10 posts or so to get to the namecalling, I see.

>>>Some time in the future you'll pass someone else.
>
>> And jump back and forth again.
>
>2 miles later... not every other car as you propose.

2 miles later happens in less than 2 minutes on most roads. Multiply that by
all the people driving like you, that are hopping back and forth, back and
forth just to satisfy some archaic notion, based on a law that was repealed
about 35 years ago. Every overt act, such as accelerating or decelerating,
lane changing, etc. carries a potential to go wrong and cause an accident.
That's why they should be minimized. If you can drive from 1 coast to the other
without changing speed or changing lanes, you should. Other than that,
minimize the changes you have to make.
>
>>> But the frequency of changing lanes is greatly reduced.
>
>> As compared to...?
>
>To your insane idea

Just plain wrong.

>>>This is very simple stuff.
>
>> Then why can't you figure it out?
>
>You're the claybrook follower here, not I.

In article >, Dave Head wrote:

> Well, I think _you_ ought to be limited to about 20 mph until you regain some
> perspective. Its just traffic, not a religion.

You haven't read any carl taylor posts then. Amung those who would have
us all driving 20mph, it is. Entirely faith based.

>>2 miles later... not every other car as you propose.

> 2 miles later happens in less than 2 minutes on most roads. Multiply that by
> all the people driving like you, that are hopping back and forth, back and
> forth just to satisfy some archaic notion, based on a law that was repealed
> about 35 years ago.

Repealed? It's the law in most states. IL made it's KRETP law tighter as
of last year.

> Every overt act, such as accelerating or decelerating,
> lane changing, etc. carries a potential to go wrong and cause an accident.

Yet you object to the clump of vehicles, trapped together, unable to
change lanes. That's the idea for the static speed and no lane change
concept. To reach even close to the same throughput you need to have the
vehicles tightly spaced because nobody can pass.

> That's why they should be minimized. If you can drive from 1 coast to the other
> without changing speed or changing lanes, you should. Other than that,
> minimize the changes you have to make.

And let me guess, it's you who gets to choose the speed everyone has to
drive at to make that possible. Safety through rigid control of the
population.

Fact: Everybody will NOT drive the same speed.

We can not change this fact. Thusly, your concept of a drive with minimal
lane changing fails. How do we deal with this fact. Keep right except to
pass. This insures that faster traffic can pass slower traffic with a
minimum of spacial conflict.

Your idea only works if you can make everyone drive the same speed,
otherwise, you get the clumps you were complaining about. The clump is
the direct result of your cruise on the left driving. May you continue to
encounter people who drive like you, regardless of which lane you're in.

In article >, Dave Head wrote:

> Well, I think _you_ ought to be limited to about 20 mph until you regain some
> perspective. Its just traffic, not a religion.

You haven't read any carl taylor posts then. Amung those who would have
us all driving 20mph, it is. Entirely faith based.

>>2 miles later... not every other car as you propose.

> 2 miles later happens in less than 2 minutes on most roads. Multiply that by
> all the people driving like you, that are hopping back and forth, back and
> forth just to satisfy some archaic notion, based on a law that was repealed
> about 35 years ago.

Repealed? It's the law in most states. IL made it's KRETP law tighter as
of last year.

> Every overt act, such as accelerating or decelerating,
> lane changing, etc. carries a potential to go wrong and cause an accident.

Yet you object to the clump of vehicles, trapped together, unable to
change lanes. That's the idea for the static speed and no lane change
concept. To reach even close to the same throughput you need to have the
vehicles tightly spaced because nobody can pass.

> That's why they should be minimized. If you can drive from 1 coast to the other
> without changing speed or changing lanes, you should. Other than that,
> minimize the changes you have to make.

And let me guess, it's you who gets to choose the speed everyone has to
drive at to make that possible. Safety through rigid control of the
population.

Fact: Everybody will NOT drive the same speed.

We can not change this fact. Thusly, your concept of a drive with minimal
lane changing fails. How do we deal with this fact. Keep right except to
pass. This insures that faster traffic can pass slower traffic with a
minimum of spacial conflict.

Your idea only works if you can make everyone drive the same speed,
otherwise, you get the clumps you were complaining about. The clump is
the direct result of your cruise on the left driving. May you continue to
encounter people who drive like you, regardless of which lane you're in.

It's herd mentallity; they just haven't evolved as much as other
members of humanity.

It's herd mentallity; they just haven't evolved as much as other
members of humanity.

Around 1/13/2005 12:52 PM, wrote:

> Garth Almgren wrote:
>
>>Around 1/13/2005 11:35 AM, wrote:
>>
>>>Brent P wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>><snip>
>>>
>>>I think passing traffic should jump into the _right_ lane,
>>
>>Mistake number one, nobody should "jump" anywhere. It should be a
>
> smooth
>
>>lane change. If you're "jumping" from lane to lane, you're doing
>>something wrong.
>
>
> Its just an expression...

You seem to believe it.


>>>the more dangerous lane,
>>
>>In your mind only, my naïve padawan.
>
>
> No, its true.

In your mind only, my naïve padawan.


>>>and be there only as long as it takes to pass.
>>
>><Willy Wonka> Wait a minute. Strike that. Reverse it.
>>
>>The law says Keep Right, not Keep Left. If you really want to Keep Left,
>>I suggest driving in England sometime.
>
>
> Big whoop. The law says drive 55 mph, or 65 mph, or whatever, too -
> nobody follows that either.

Yeah, but that has very little to do with safety. KRETP, OTOH, is an
important factor in making driving safer.

>>>>You don't jump back and forth. You pass, then you finish passing and
>>>>return to the right.
>>>
>>>
>>>And that is jumping back and forth, back and forth, etc.
>>
>>No, that's proper passing.
>
>
> Which still creates a whole pile of lane changes.

So? Who cares? Changing lanes is an integral part of driving.

If you're so afraid of changing lanes, keep to the right and you'll
rarely have to change lanes, except for those oddball left exits.


>>>>This is very simple stuff.
>>>
>>>Then why can't you figure it out?
>>
>>He has. You're the only one around here that hasn't.
>
>
> I'm the only one that _has_ figured it out.

Clearly you have not, or we wouldn't be having this discussion.


>>Why do you have a hard time understanding "Keep Right Except to
>
> Pass?"
>
>>It's not a difficult concept, nor is it difficult to practice.
>
>
> Its virtually impossible to practice most of the time.

Then you haven't really tried.



--
~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie.
Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave.
******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant."
for secure mail info) --H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)