A New Category of Sloth

Mike T. wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > How about adding Sloth Turners? Those are the ones who may travel at
> > or above the speed limit in a straight line, but come to a near stop
> > when turning onto a side road, lot entrance, etc. I see this a lot
> > from SUVs and trucks, but it's certainly not limited to any specific
> > category of vehicle.
> >
>
> You're saying that you want to do someone else's driving FOR THEM.

How about those drivers that, rather than using the bike lane (if
available) pull as far LEFT in a lane as they can, when making a RIGHT
turn? In Cali, you're supposed to use the bike lane for right turns,
so that through traffic can keep moving, but many people driving
SUVs/pickups think they're driving a 40' semi and block through traffic
completely to make their right.

There's a lot of bad drivers in the world, just ask the old woman who
ignored LEFT TURNS YIELD in front of me last night.

Dave

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 13:07:02 -0800, Scott en Aztlán
> wrote:

>On 9 Dec 2005 07:35:04 -0800, "
> wrote:
>
>>How about adding Sloth Turners? Those are the ones who may travel at
>>or above the speed limit in a straight line, but come to a near stop
>>when turning onto a side road, lot entrance, etc.
>
>Good one!
>
>And I know for a fact that some of them do it because they get a
>"control freak's high" out of ****ing other people over. One time I
>was stuck behind a Sloth on a two-lane road (no passing). I did not
>tailgate or flash - I just hung back and bided my time. When I saw his
>left signal go on, I dropped down a couple gears in anticipation of
>freedom. The prick slowed down to about 5 MPH before making his turn,
>even though there was no oncoming traffic in sight. As soon as he
>began turning, I punched it, passing his right rear bumper by inches.
>The son of a bitch honked his horn at me! Obviously he had been
>watching me in his rear-view mirror, and was ****ed off that I had
>managed to escape from his little trap "early."

Isn't it fun having a high performance car, tho? These guys that deliberately
drive slowly just to **** other people off get their asses passed before they
know what happened. Since I got my Subaru WRX, I can pass in much shorter
distances, when people have decided its OK to start slowing down because
there's a no passing zone soon and "He couldn't possibly pass me before the no
passing zone" and then I do it. And it doesn't much matter if they try to
speed up to keep me from passing them, because I then do it anyway. Having a
power to weight ratio as high as this one is, is a truly enjoyable thing.

Ding-dong last night turned onto the same sideroad I did, so proceeded to do 20
mph. Then turned onto a higher speed limit road, and proceeded to continue to
drive _way_ below the speed limit. The passing zone there is short, so he
expected that he could continue to hold me up some more. Lasted about 3
seconds. When I got done with the pass, of course he sped up - he had no one
to screw with once I wasn't behind him.

Dave Head

In article .com>, gpsman wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article .com>, wrote:
>> > How about adding Sloth Turners? Those are the ones who may travel at
>> > or above the speed limit in a straight line, but come to a near stop
>> > when turning onto a side road, lot entrance, etc. I see this a lot
>> > from SUVs and trucks, but it's certainly not limited to any specific
>> > category of vehicle.
>>
>> Those who can't manage to turn and accelerate at the same time and those
>> who decide it's a good thing to spend as much time in the intersection as
>> possible neglecting the obvious danger of being there and having no
>> concern for anyone else making it through on the green signal.
> -----
>
> Other drivers making it through green signals is their own problem.

How selfish.

> One clue is the relative sizes of the windshield and rear (and side)
> view mirror(s). There's always going to be another green in a minute
> or so. I haven't seen any skeletons parked in cars at intersections
> anyway...

So why don't you just park at the stop line. There will be another green.

The problem with your theory is that it only works in rural nebraska in
1932. In the real world, where roads are so packed with vehicles, this
build up from cycle to cycle leads to a crushing congestion where the
queue from one light backs up into the one before it.

> You want to "drive other people's vehicles" as well as your own. You
> can only control one at a time, it's best if it's the one your keys
> happen to be in.

No. I want the road system to work properly. I want maximum effeciency
out of the roads we have. You on the other case don't care about anyone
besides yourself.

Brent P wrote:
> gpsman wrote:

> > Other drivers making it through green signals is their own problem.
>
> How selfish.

How so? My job is to drive my vehicle, safely. The ever-increasing
number of drivers driving ever-increasingly unsafely means I have to
drive a little slower to compensate. I never enter an intersection
without ensuring that it's safe to do so. I can't (won't) assume that
everybody else will obey the signal that allows me the right-of-way.
If that adds a second or two, I think it's worth it. If you don't
agree, leave a few seconds earlier to compensate for me. Measuring
travel time in seconds or a couple minutes is your perogative. My
philosophy is "As long as it takes is as long as it takes". I haven't
been in a hurry in over 20 years... and my life is better for it.

We all deal with the driving habits of others. Some of us don't have
any problems (me), some of us have nothing but problems. If you have
problems with other drivers, those are *your* problems, not other
drivers'. Thinking that others should be concerned with your problem
is illogical and destines you to experience disappointment and
unhappiness. OTOH, I enjoy driving.

> > One clue is the relative sizes of the windshield and rear (and side)
> > view mirror(s). There's always going to be another green in a minute
> > or so. I haven't seen any skeletons parked in cars at intersections
> > anyway...
>
> So why don't you just park at the stop line. There will be another green.

???

> The problem with your theory is that it only works in rural nebraska in
> 1932. In the real world, where roads are so packed with vehicles, this
> build up from cycle to cycle leads to a crushing congestion where the
> queue from one light backs up into the one before it.

My theory works *perfectly* wherever I drive (49 states, I haven't been
to AK yet but I suspect it will work there too). I cite my ability to
clock +140K miles per year as evidence.

But let's look at why traffic might "build up from cycle to cycle leads
to a crushing congestion". I contend it's caused by too many drivers
ignoring the speed limit and arriving at intersections before traffic
planners intended.

A car leaving the light at X is planned to arrive at Y in A to B amount
of time. Today's driver's habits of excessive acceleration to a
certain percentage of velocity above the speed limit and last second
braking and not *stopping* before turning right-on-red and cutting
people off causing them to brake, et al, is what causes most of the
congestion not attributable to the vehicle/space ratio. Traffic
planners have to expect traffic to obey the law . It doesn't. The
problem of congestion is exacerbated by speeding scofflaw impatient
drivers, not slower, legal and patient drivers.

> > You want to "drive other people's vehicles" as well as your own. You
> > can only control one at a time, it's best if it's the one your keys
> > happen to be in.
>
> No. I want the road system to work properly. I want maximum effeciency
> out of the roads we have. You on the other case don't care about anyone
> besides yourself.

You "want the road system to work properly"? What are you contributing
to that end? I drive the speed limit or thereabouts, *always* use my
signals (I don't even think about it, I just do it due to good training
and habit) and make allowances for speeding scofflaw impatient
drivers... constantly.

You "want maximum efficiency"? What are you contributing to that end?
Besides the "want"? The road system is not intended or designed to
allow travel from A to B in the shortest possible time. Drivers who
assume that and force their erroneous belief on traffic are the most
influential detriment to that end.

I try to maintain a 3 second following distance. Other drivers, even
though there is rarely anyone behind me, constantly fill in that gap.
That's my problem, not theirs. I adjust, and it's not a problem.
Drivers constantly follow me too closely. That's my problem, not
theirs. I adjust, and it's not a problem. Drivers sometimes "fall
asleep" at lights (usually the jackass that was in such a hurry to get
there first, ironically) and I don't make the light. That's my
problem, not theirs. I adjust, and it's not a problem. So... I take
responsibility over that which I have control. I drive in a safe,
legal and courteous manner. If the guy behind me doesn't make the
light, that's his problem, not mine.

Anybody who has a problem with my driving can leave 60 seconds earlier
or later and probably avoid me altogether. I "drive my own rig", I
suggest you do the same.
-----

- gpsman

Dave wrote:
>
> How about those drivers that, rather than using the bike lane (if
> available) pull as far LEFT in a lane as they can, when making a RIGHT
> turn?

This gives them the best driving line through the corner, saving
them time and gas and making their turn safer. However, it is
very inconsiderate to the people they hold up in the process,
so I only ever do it when nobody is directly behind me.

Scott en Aztlán wrote:

> We have already identified several categories of Sloth, including
> * Sloth Mergers,
> * Sloth Coasters,
> * Sloth Passers,
> * Sloth Speeders,

Don't forget about Sloth Creepers, the morons who stop well before
an intersection, just far enough away so that they don't trigger the
light sensor. When tooted, they proceed forward at a snail's pace.

In article . com>, gpsman wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> gpsman wrote:
>
>> > Other drivers making it through green signals is their own problem.
>>
>> How selfish.
>
> How so?

You clearly don't care one wit about the flow or anyone but yourself.
It's all about you and only you making it through the green signal, the
hell with anyone else. You are driving for you, not the system as a
whole. Instead of making things better for everyone, you concern yourself
with only making things better for you.

> My job is to drive my vehicle, safely.

Your responsibility is much greater than that.

> The ever-increasing
> number of drivers driving ever-increasingly unsafely means I have to
> drive a little slower to compensate.

I have yet to find a condition where that makes me delay other road users
in getting through an intersection.

> I never enter an intersection without ensuring that it's safe to do so.

Let me guess, you don't even start looking if it's safe until you reach
the head of the queue? A typical habbit of sloth is to be totally
unaware of the situation until they reach the front of the queue and then
sit there, pausing, to see if it's safe to turn. This either reduces the
number of vehicles that can make it through a gap in traffic or results
in the gap closing without anyone getting through it.

> I can't (won't) assume that
> everybody else will obey the signal that allows me the right-of-way.

So you shouldn't drive. Ever.

> If that adds a second or two, I think it's worth it.

2 seconds for everyone and suddenly the throughput of the intersection is
greatly reduced and soon it takes an hour to go six miles.

> If you don't
> agree, leave a few seconds earlier to compensate for me.

You don't even understand how the system works. It's not just a couple of
seconds. It can be HOURS. It is a throughput issue. Once you reduce the
throughput of an intersection the traffic builds up. Eventually it builds
up into the previous traffic signal. This results in a crushing
congestion.

> Measuring
> travel time in seconds or a couple minutes is your perogative. My
> philosophy is "As long as it takes is as long as it takes". I haven't
> been in a hurry in over 20 years... and my life is better for it.

Yet you have no concept of the problems that sloth causes to the system
as a whole. Maybe you enjoy taking a hour to go 6 miles. I don't. Keep in
mind that I just want to be able to achieve travel times that are
appropiate for a BICYCLE. Remember, my vehicle of choice is a bicycle.
How much of hurry do you think I'm in, if I judge it from a bicycling
POV?

> We all deal with the driving habits of others. Some of us don't have
> any problems (me), some of us have nothing but problems. If you have
> problems with other drivers, those are *your* problems, not other
> drivers'. Thinking that others should be concerned with your problem
> is illogical and destines you to experience disappointment and
> unhappiness. OTOH, I enjoy driving.

I drive in a manner that maximizes the effeciency and safety of the
system. You drive in manner that suits you. That's the difference. To
you, it's all about you. You, **** the other guy, that's his problem. And
hence the root of the problem driving in the USA. Selfish tards, wether
they be slow like you or boy racers. It's all about them and everyone
else can go **** themselves.

In Germany, I found people drive much like I do. Hell, I found in WV
people drive considerably better than in chicago. In WV I actually saw a
woman in a minivan accelerate to get out of the way of the traffic flow
to make her turn without interfering with other drivers. That's what I am
talking about, driving such that one doesn't impact the system
negatively. Driving such that everyone can get where they are going.

But you, you drive for YOU, the hell with everyone else, that's their
problem. Your words.

>> > One clue is the relative sizes of the windshield and rear (and side)
>> > view mirror(s). There's always going to be another green in a minute
>> > or so. I haven't seen any skeletons parked in cars at intersections
>> > anyway...

>> So why don't you just park at the stop line. There will be another green.

> ???

You seem to think that waiting multiple cycles is fine, why don't you
wait multiple cycles? Oh, that's right, it's ok for the _other_ guy to
wait multiple cycles.

>> The problem with your theory is that it only works in rural nebraska in
>> 1932. In the real world, where roads are so packed with vehicles, this
>> build up from cycle to cycle leads to a crushing congestion where the
>> queue from one light backs up into the one before it.

> My theory works *perfectly* wherever I drive (49 states, I haven't been
> to AK yet but I suspect it will work there too). I cite my ability to
> clock +140K miles per year as evidence.

It's causing crushing congestion in chicago every day.

> But let's look at why traffic might "build up from cycle to cycle leads
> to a crushing congestion". I contend it's caused by too many drivers
> ignoring the speed limit and arriving at intersections before traffic
> planners intended.

Speed limit? Speed limit? Under those conditions the speed limit isn't
even reached. And no, it's about too many people reaching the signal
because of speed. There are too many people period for the throughput of
the intersection. The road is filled with vehicles for MILES. Ever see
lake cook road west bound in the afternoon in chicago's north suburbs?
The thing is full of vehicles from I94 all the way west to IL53.

> A car leaving the light at X is planned to arrive at Y in A to B amount
> of time. Today's driver's habits of excessive acceleration

Here's where you fail, I don't see "excessive acceleration" in any
proportion beyond a fraction of one percant. I'm usually the fastest off
the line with a BICYCLE.

> to a
> certain percentage of velocity above the speed limit and last second
> braking and not *stopping* before turning right-on-red and cutting
> people off causing them to brake, et al, is what causes most of the
> congestion not attributable to the vehicle/space ratio.

Yet, this doesn't happen to me when I am driving. When I am bicycling it
does, but people are irrational when around bicyclists. With the same
speed and conditions they don't even attempt it when I am driving. And on
a bicycle I can just pass them back if I so desire.

> Traffic
> planners have to expect traffic to obey the law . It doesn't. The
> problem of congestion is exacerbated by speeding scofflaw impatient
> drivers, not slower, legal and patient drivers.

The law not reflecting reality is a problem for many reasons. But it
cannot be causing too many vehicles to reach each light per cycle when
there a lights every half mile. If you had a traffic light every ten
miles you might have a point. But in close urban/suburban traffic it's
simply not possible because each light acts as a gate. Too many reaching
one would mean too few reaching another and it would average out.

Instead what happens is the lights that are closest together first begin
backing up into each other.

>> > You want to "drive other people's vehicles" as well as your own. You
>> > can only control one at a time, it's best if it's the one your keys
>> > happen to be in.

>> No. I want the road system to work properly. I want maximum effeciency
>> out of the roads we have. You on the other case don't care about anyone
>> besides yourself.

> You "want the road system to work properly"? What are you contributing
> to that end?

I pay attention. I don't dilly-dally. I get through an intersection
swiftly. I don't park there like some sloth do. See, on a bicycle,
getting hit by a car is really going to hurt.

> I drive the speed limit or thereabouts,

Everything I have written works from the POV of a bicyclist. So you can
drop your attempt to make this about speed. My top speed in traffic on
flat ground on a bicycle is 35mph. The lowest arterial speed limit I
encounter these days is 35mph.

> *always* use my signals

So do I. Even while bicycling. Even use the obscure 'slowing' arm signal
from time to time.

> and make allowances for speeding scofflaw impatient
> drivers... constantly.

Obviously not.

> You "want maximum efficiency"? What are you contributing to that end?
> Besides the "want"?

Do you think asking the same question twice generates different answers?

> The road system is not intended or designed to
> allow travel from A to B in the shortest possible time.

So then it could be a dirt path. Why isn't it a dirt path?

> Drivers who
> assume that and force their erroneous belief on traffic are the most
> influential detriment to that end.

How am I using force from a bicycle? Especially a light weight AL framed
one.

> I try to maintain a 3 second following distance.

And in the process wait 3 seconds before you move from a stop, wasting
valuable intersection throughput.

> Other drivers, even though there is rarely anyone behind me,

BINGO. You don't drive in the conditions I am talking about.

> That's my problem, not theirs. I adjust, and it's not a problem.
> Drivers constantly follow me too closely. That's my problem, not
> theirs. I adjust, and it's not a problem. Drivers sometimes "fall
> asleep" at lights (usually the jackass that was in such a hurry to get
> there first, ironically) and I don't make the light. That's my
> problem, not theirs. I adjust, and it's not a problem. So... I take
> responsibility over that which I have control. I drive in a safe,
> legal and courteous manner. If the guy behind me doesn't make the
> light, that's his problem, not mine.

So you **** over other drivers and just accept it when you are ****ed
over. Great, you accept the status quo, you are part of the problem.

> Anybody who has a problem with my driving can leave 60 seconds earlier
> or later and probably avoid me altogether. I "drive my own rig", I
>suggest you do the same.

You first, **** everyone else.

Dave Head wrote:
> Isn't it fun having a high performance car, tho? These guys that
> deliberately drive slowly just to **** other people off get their
> asses passed before they know what happened. Since I got
> my Subaru WRX, I can pass in much shorter distances, when
> people have decided its OK to start slowing down because there's
> a no passing zone soon and "He couldn't possibly pass me before
> the no passing zone" and then I do it. And it doesn't much
> matter if they try to speed up to keep me from passing them,
> because I then do it anyway. Having a power to weight ratio as
> high as this one is, is a truly enjoyable thing.

It's glorious, isn't it. Yesterday, I was driving in a 70kph zone (no
opportunity to pass), and this retard in a Legacy was in front of me,
doing about 55kph. We came up to an intersection, and in this
area the lane splits into two just before the intersection, and
merges again just after it.

I moved into the spare lane. As soon as the light changed, this
****** put the hammer down. Luckily my little turbo hatchback
had no problems passing his weak ass. We got up to 70kph,
at which point the freak backed off back to about 40kph !

I never exceeded the speed limit but this toad was almost
invisible in the distance behind me by the time we got to
the next set of lights a kilometre down the road.

Old Wolf wrote:
> Dave wrote:
> >
> > How about those drivers that, rather than using the bike lane (if
> > available) pull as far LEFT in a lane as they can, when making a RIGHT
> > turn?
>
> This gives them the best driving line through the corner, saving
> them time and gas and making their turn safer. However, it is
> very inconsiderate to the people they hold up in the process,
> so I only ever do it when nobody is directly behind me.

CA vehicle code says it's wrong to not use the bike lane, when
available, according to a DMV tester. I assumed I wasn't supposed to
do it during my test, so I didn't, and lost points.

Oh well, at least now I know that I'm right to use it here. A lot of
roads had right turn lanes removed to make bike lanes, so it's a good
idea to allow cars to use it if bikes aren't present.

Dave

Dave wrote:

> Old Wolf wrote:
>> Dave wrote:
>> >
>> > How about those drivers that, rather than using the bike lane (if
>> > available) pull as far LEFT in a lane as they can, when making a RIGHT
>> > turn?
>>
>> This gives them the best driving line through the corner, saving
>> them time and gas and making their turn safer. However, it is
>> very inconsiderate to the people they hold up in the process,
>> so I only ever do it when nobody is directly behind me.
>
> CA vehicle code says it's wrong to not use the bike lane, when
> available, according to a DMV tester. I assumed I wasn't supposed to
> do it during my test, so I didn't, and lost points.
>
> Oh well, at least now I know that I'm right to use it here. A lot of
> roads had right turn lanes removed to make bike lanes, so it's a good
> idea to allow cars to use it if bikes aren't present.

You should always use that lane to make a right turn. The "bike lanes" are
for informational purposes only and carry no weight at all -- or so I was
informed by my councildroid and the traffic engineer at the meeting to discuss
painting white bike-lane lines in the street. Their real value is that
somehow they make traffic go slower and are therefore one of the hated
"calming devices."

They didn't use paint, they used that thick plastic-like substance that
becomes as slippery as grease when wet. If I didn't know better I'd think
they were trying to kill us bikers. Wait, I don't actually know better... I
hate the damn things from both the driver's and the biker's standpoint.

What you DO have to do is make sure you don't drive over a bicyclist whether
he's in a "bike lane" or not.

--
Cheers, Bev
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(On going to war over religion "You're basically killing each other
to see who's got the better imaginary friend." -- Rich Jeni