A New Category of Sloth

Brent P wrote: <brevity snip>
> gpsman wrote:
>
> > No, everyone is NOT speeding, at *anytime* of day, *anywhere* in the
> > country.
>
> Spoken like a man who has never seen a 45mph speed limit on an interstate
> that was not under construction or a 25mph speed limit sign on a major
> arterial where there were no cross streets because of construction but
> all lanes were open. (and a non-construction flow speed of 60mph).

How old ARE you...?

I've driven the DRE and 45 seems plenty fast. I've never seen traffic
flowing that fast other than brief periods but I think there are too
many ramps and too little run-off area for higher speeds to be
considered safe. Construction zones are zoned to TRY to add a measure
of assurance *another* dip**** who is in too much of a hurry to pay
attention doesn't run over *another* construction worker. So many
construction workers have been maimed and killed that states have felt
compelled to pass special provisions and mandatory prison as punishment
to protect them. You would find "but all lanes are open" of no concern
if it was your ass was on the line.

> I'll gladly drive you around the chicago area at the speed limit. You can
> count how many vehicles we pass. It will be a less than demanding job
> though, you might get to one.

I've driven all over Chicago- at the limit- with no problem. WHAT does
"how many vehicles we pass" have to do with ANYTHING?!?! HOW old are
you...?

> > Congratulations on your brief experience driving the speed limit. It
> > wasn't that hard, was it?
>
> I find it very difficult to drive the speed limit. It's very dangerous to
> merge, change lanes, and do just about any move other than stay planted
> where ever you happen to be if it is at all possible. It's also a
> condition where one ends up watching the rear view mirror more than where
> he is going, because the odds of running into something are comparitively
> small compared to something running into you.

Ya know... I've never seen a single crash stat related to "vehicles
operated too slowly". Your "excuses" are rationalizations.

> > I've driven at or about the limit since
> > about 1980, from coast to coast and border to border and I haven't
> > experienced any of your problems.
>
> translation: since 1980 means before 1985, when speeds were much lower,
> vehicles a lot crappier, the NMSL was still enforced heavily, and still
> nearly everyone violated the posted speed limit and there was
> considerably less traffic.

"Since about 1980" includes 1985 through today. I haven't experienced
any problems you describe.

I scanned a few of your non-state but government related sources and
saw nothing to support a single thing you've ever posted but I did note
a few refutations.
-----

- gpsman

In article .com>,
"gpsman" > wrote:

> Brent P wrote: <brevity snip>
> > gpsman wrote:
> >
> > > No, everyone is NOT speeding, at *anytime* of day, *anywhere* in the
> > > country.
> >
> > Spoken like a man who has never seen a 45mph speed limit on an interstate
> > that was not under construction or a 25mph speed limit sign on a major
> > arterial where there were no cross streets because of construction but
> > all lanes were open. (and a non-construction flow speed of 60mph).
>
> How old ARE you...?
>
> I've driven the DRE and 45 seems plenty fast. I've never seen traffic
> flowing that fast other than brief periods but I think there are too
> many ramps and too little run-off area for higher speeds to be
> considered safe. Construction zones are zoned to TRY to add a measure
> of assurance *another* dip**** who is in too much of a hurry to pay
> attention doesn't run over *another* construction worker. So many
> construction workers have been maimed and killed that states have felt
> compelled to pass special provisions and mandatory prison as punishment
> to protect them. You would find "but all lanes are open" of no concern
> if it was your ass was on the line.

Car & Driver recently debunked that myth (that construction workers are
being killed very often by cars in construction zones.

>
> > I'll gladly drive you around the chicago area at the speed limit. You can
> > count how many vehicles we pass. It will be a less than demanding job
> > though, you might get to one.
>
> I've driven all over Chicago- at the limit- with no problem. WHAT does
> "how many vehicles we pass" have to do with ANYTHING?!?! HOW old are
> you...?
>
> > > Congratulations on your brief experience driving the speed limit. It
> > > wasn't that hard, was it?
> >
> > I find it very difficult to drive the speed limit. It's very dangerous to
> > merge, change lanes, and do just about any move other than stay planted
> > where ever you happen to be if it is at all possible. It's also a
> > condition where one ends up watching the rear view mirror more than where
> > he is going, because the odds of running into something are comparitively
> > small compared to something running into you.
>
> Ya know... I've never seen a single crash stat related to "vehicles
> operated too slowly". Your "excuses" are rationalizations.

Because you can't charge anyone more insurance for that...

<snip>

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

In article .com>, gpsman wrote:
> Brent P wrote: <brevity snip>
>> gpsman wrote:
>>
>> > No, everyone is NOT speeding, at *anytime* of day, *anywhere* in the
>> > country.
>>
>> Spoken like a man who has never seen a 45mph speed limit on an interstate
>> that was not under construction or a 25mph speed limit sign on a major
>> arterial where there were no cross streets because of construction but
>> all lanes were open. (and a non-construction flow speed of 60mph).
>
> How old ARE you...?

How is that relevant? There are interstates are posted that low today.

> I've driven the DRE and 45 seems plenty fast.

45 on the dan ryan expressway is creeping slow. The expressway is a more
or less straight north-south cut through the city of chicago. There are
no curves until the circle interchange and even there 45mph is
exceesively slow. Through downtown there is nothing to make 45mph seem
fast.

> I've never seen traffic
> flowing that fast other than brief periods

Then you haven't driven it much. Because for most of the ryan the ramps
are in the locals, no ramps, but the express still has a 50mph speed
limit. You certainly haven't heard the terms for the dan ryan like nword
500 and similiar.

> but I think there are too
> many ramps and too little run-off area for higher speeds to be
> considered safe.

Traffic flows higher than 45mph any time congestion doesn't force it
slower. And what you think, the number you pull out of your ass isn't
relevant. The fact is you'll find everyone driving there to be speeding
unless their path is physically blocked.

> Construction zones are zoned to TRY to add a measure
> of assurance *another* dip**** who is in too much of a hurry to pay
> attention doesn't run over *another* construction worker.

Trouble is the road I am talking about had a 24/7 25mph speed limit.
Obeying it nearly got me killed. People were becoming enraged to the
point of trying to cause me to crash. When I complained to the local
constabulary I got no response but the speed limit was then increased.

> So many
> construction workers have been maimed and killed that states have felt
> compelled to pass special provisions and mandatory prison as punishment
> to protect them. You would find "but all lanes are open" of no concern
> if it was your ass was on the line.

There were no workers at night. But I was nearly killed obeying the limit
instead.

>> I'll gladly drive you around the chicago area at the speed limit. You can
>> count how many vehicles we pass. It will be a less than demanding job
>> though, you might get to one.

> I've driven all over Chicago- at the limit- with no problem.

Probably in 1967.

> WHAT does
> "how many vehicles we pass" have to do with ANYTHING?!?! HOW old are
> you...?

If a speed limit were a true upper bound one should be passing vehicles
while driving it.

>> > Congratulations on your brief experience driving the speed limit. It
>> > wasn't that hard, was it?

>> I find it very difficult to drive the speed limit. It's very dangerous to
>> merge, change lanes, and do just about any move other than stay planted
>> where ever you happen to be if it is at all possible. It's also a
>> condition where one ends up watching the rear view mirror more than where
>> he is going, because the odds of running into something are comparitively
>> small compared to something running into you.

> Ya know... I've never seen a single crash stat related to "vehicles
> operated too slowly". Your "excuses" are rationalizations.

Look at the references regarding crash involvement. See how it skyrockets
for vehicles a couple standard deviations below the flow speed.

>> > I've driven at or about the limit since
>> > about 1980, from coast to coast and border to border and I haven't
>> > experienced any of your problems.

>> translation: since 1980 means before 1985, when speeds were much lower,
>> vehicles a lot crappier, the NMSL was still enforced heavily, and still
>> nearly everyone violated the posted speed limit and there was
>> considerably less traffic.

> "Since about 1980" includes 1985 through today. I haven't experienced
> any problems you describe.

And you claim to never have seen the dan ryan flowing above 45mph, so
it's pretty clear you haven't driven it much or only durring rush hours.

> I scanned a few of your non-state but government related sources and
> saw nothing to support a single thing you've ever posted but I did note
> a few refutations.

Yet, you can't point them out. Nice try.

Arif Khokar > wrote in
:

> DYM wrote:
>
>> Go look at the crash stats and tell me what class of driver is the
>> best and which are the worst. It comes out that school bus drivers
>> are the safest drivers around, it's not even close. Then come the
>> other CDL holders. For 2004, school buses had 0.01 passenger deaths
>> per 100,000,000 miles, passenger cars 0.94.
>
> Do you happen to have stats (or know of a place that details them)
> that detail the actual crash stats per 100 million miles (rather than
> passenger deaths) for school buses and commercial vehicles?
>

I was pulling from the FARS database. I'll see if I can pull it out.

Doug

DYM wrote:

> Arif Khokar > wrote in
> :

>>Do you happen to have stats (or know of a place that details them)
>>that detail the actual crash stats per 100 million miles (rather than
>>passenger deaths) for school buses and commercial vehicles?

> I was pulling from the FARS database. I'll see if I can pull it out.

Thanks. I wasn't aware that FARS interface could separate out school
bus crashes. I'm not sure if you'll be able to get the VMT figure for
school buses though (which is necessary for the calculation).

> Sloths are the major problem with
> traffic and have no right to drive because... I don't like it, it's
> dangerous, they're MFFY's, they slow traffic, they're a minority (!),
> blah-blahblah-blahblah'blahblah....

Well at least we can agree on something

(Brent P) wrote in
:

> In article >, DYM wrote:
>> (Brent P) wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> In article >, DYM wrote:
>>>> (Brent P) wrote in
>>>
>>>>> According to what you wrote, you won't stand up and defend your
>>>>> right of way, you'll let them have it.
>>>
>>>> And you're just going to slam into the idiot that "thinks" they have
>>>> the right of way when you know you do?
>>>
>>> You don't seem to understand that the other person is looking for
>>> someone he can push around. Just showing you can't be pushed causes
>>> them to back down.
>
>> And when the other driver doesn't back down. You get that race to the
>> tollbooth picture that was posted not long ago.
>> Is it really worth risking a crash to prove you're the Alpha Male?
>
> It has zero to do with "Alpha Male".
>
> Where has 'just let them do it' gotten us? A road system where anything
> goes and rude selfish drivers have a huge sense of entitlement. I won't
> honor that sense of entitlement and I simply refused to be pushed around.
>
I still don't see how you can win a fight like that with out a collision.
If the other driver is just as determined as your are, it's not going to
end well. It has everything to do with Alpha Male behavior. You show a
determined look, he shows a determined look. You make a threatening
gesture, he makes a threatening gesture. Where does it end? Two idiots
trying to figure out how they can explain the damage to their insurance
company.

I will do everything in my power to get back to the yard with no one
injured and no dents on my vehicle. If that means letting some asshole make
a right turn in front of me when I've got the green left arrow, so be it.
Let him think he put one over one me. If that fantacy makes his day, what
has it cost me? A second? How awful, my wife will bitch about me coming
home a few seconds late and my life will be miserable. Get real. I still
get back to the yard at 4:24 everyday, no matter how many assholes think
they are runing my day.

>>>> Yeah, the other driver will get the
>>>> ticket and pay for the damages. But when gpsman or I go into a Safety
>>>> Review Meeting we have to show that the collision was unavoidable.
>>>> Was there anyhting we could have done to not collid with that other
>>>> vehicle. Yeah, don't assume the other driver is going to yield. Make
>>>> sure they are yielding. (Don't trust the yahoo four-wheeler when he
>>>> says you can fit in that parking lot, no problem. But that's another
>>>> scenario.)
>
>>> I could make a nearly endless list of the moves I've seen by truckers
>>> throwing the weight of their vehicle around as a tool of intimidation
>>> or just plain MFFY behaviors.
>
>> I'm on the road 8-9 hours per day. The VAST majority of bonehead moves
>> are executed by four-wheelers.
>
> Wooptie do. Doesn't change the two-trailer semi that cut me off and then
> was later 3 feet off my rear bumper a few weeks ago. Or any of the other
> things I see arsehole truckers do with their rigs because they can use
> size to make people back down.
>
> You might as well bring in some other irrelevant stat like the number
> ufos landing on interstates.
>
>
>

No it doesn't change that steering wheel holder's behaviour. Not does it
change the DIG who didn't need to slow down on a blind curve and frontended
a bus on Monday. Not does it change the teen driver's misconception that
the alternating yellow lights on the top of the bus are turn signals and
it's ok to pull out. He got t-boned, and cited for failure to yeild at a
stop sign. Then there was the pickup that I mentioned above that cut me off
when I had a green left arrow. There was the hot shot Arcura that I almost
T-boned when he pulled out in front of me from a full stop sign.

I see more **** purportrated by four wheelers in a day they you will see
CDL drivers pull in a month.

Do you want to continue the anecdotal ****ing contest, or can you present
some statistics that prove CDL drivers are more unsafe than non-CDL
drivers.

Doug
BTW, I could only find Vehicle Mile Travels table for 2001. Anybody have a
link to a newer one?

In article >, DYM wrote:
> (Brent P) wrote in
> :
>
>> In article >, DYM wrote:
>>> (Brent P) wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> In article >, DYM wrote:
>>>>> (Brent P) wrote in
>>>>
>>>>>> According to what you wrote, you won't stand up and defend your
>>>>>> right of way, you'll let them have it.
>>>>
>>>>> And you're just going to slam into the idiot that "thinks" they have
>>>>> the right of way when you know you do?
>>>>
>>>> You don't seem to understand that the other person is looking for
>>>> someone he can push around. Just showing you can't be pushed causes
>>>> them to back down.
>>
>>> And when the other driver doesn't back down. You get that race to the
>>> tollbooth picture that was posted not long ago.
>>> Is it really worth risking a crash to prove you're the Alpha Male?
>>
>> It has zero to do with "Alpha Male".
>>
>> Where has 'just let them do it' gotten us? A road system where anything
>> goes and rude selfish drivers have a huge sense of entitlement. I won't
>> honor that sense of entitlement and I simply refused to be pushed around.
>>
> I still don't see how you can win a fight like that with out a collision.

I already told you, the aggressive arseholes backdown. They are like
school yard bullies, if you stand up to them they back away.

> If the other driver is just as determined as your are, it's not going to
> end well. It has everything to do with Alpha Male behavior.

No, it's school yard behavior. Not my fault you give the bully your lunch
money. Saying no and puting up a little bit of fight is all it takes to
deter the bully.

> You show a
> determined look, he shows a determined look. You make a threatening
> gesture, he makes a threatening gesture. Where does it end? Two idiots
> trying to figure out how they can explain the damage to their insurance
> company.

Not how it works at all. Arse hole makes an aggressive move, I don't
change course or speed to accomidate him.

> I will do everything in my power to get back to the yard with no one
> injured and no dents on my vehicle. If that means letting some asshole make
> a right turn in front of me when I've got the green left arrow, so be it.
> Let him think he put one over one me. If that fantacy makes his day, what
> has it cost me? A second? How awful, my wife will bitch about me coming
> home a few seconds late and my life will be miserable. Get real. I still
> get back to the yard at 4:24 everyday, no matter how many assholes think
> they are runing my day.

Doing your part to reward and encourage assholish behavior.

> I see more **** purportrated by four wheelers in a day they you will see
> CDL drivers pull in a month.

So do I. but it doesn't change that there are a lot of assholish,
selfish, etc CDL drivers out there. Especially selfish are the ones who
can't read the signs that say TRUCKS RIGHT TWO LANES.

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 00:09:39 -0600, (Brent
P) wrote:

>In article >, DYM wrote:
>> (Brent P) wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> In article >, DYM wrote:
>>>> (Brent P) wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> In article >, DYM wrote:
>>>>>> (Brent P) wrote in
>>>>>
>>>>>>> According to what you wrote, you won't stand up and defend your
>>>>>>> right of way, you'll let them have it.
>>>>>
>>>>>> And you're just going to slam into the idiot that "thinks" they have
>>>>>> the right of way when you know you do?
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't seem to understand that the other person is looking for
>>>>> someone he can push around. Just showing you can't be pushed causes
>>>>> them to back down.
>>>
>>>> And when the other driver doesn't back down. You get that race to the
>>>> tollbooth picture that was posted not long ago.
>>>> Is it really worth risking a crash to prove you're the Alpha Male?
>>>
>>> It has zero to do with "Alpha Male".
>>>
>>> Where has 'just let them do it' gotten us? A road system where anything
>>> goes and rude selfish drivers have a huge sense of entitlement. I won't
>>> honor that sense of entitlement and I simply refused to be pushed around.
>>>
>> I still don't see how you can win a fight like that with out a collision.
>
>I already told you, the aggressive arseholes backdown. They are like
>school yard bullies, if you stand up to them they back away.

It is just dumb luck if you keep doing it and _don't_ run across the eventual
psychotic which will _not_ back down.

I've done these highway duels myself. Its not something I recommend, and was
in a suicidal mood the last time I did it anyway, but then again, it was
satisfying. And no, I would _not_ have backed down, and was fully prepared and
expecting a horrible "accident" that would likely have gotten me and the "prick
of the moment" both killed. But _he_ backed down, that was about 10 year ago,
and I've never done anything like that since. But, on that day, in that
situation, that particular prick would have had to die for his trouble if he
wanted to **** with me any further.

I only did something like that once before that, when some assholes thought
they were going to 'scare' me by coming left of center and threatening a
head-on collision. I was so incensed that I _sped up_ and scared _them_, and
again, was completely commited and expecting a horrible crash that would likely
have gotten me and them all dead. But... again... I'll only put up with so
much. If they hadn't gotten back into their lane, we'd all have died that day,
because I wasn't going to give in no matter what. That was about 35 years ago.

But do realize that people that won't back down are _out there_ and each time
you engage in a highway duel, you may be taking more risk than you realize.

Dave Head

gpsman wrote:
> Nate Nagel wrote: <brevity snip>
> > gpsman wrote:
> > >
> > > Agreed... since in reality *everyone* ISN'T speeding, there must be no
> > > problem with the speed limit.
> > >
> >
> > huh? Literally everone IS speeding around here, at least outside of
> > rush hour. I actually tried driving the speed limit to work a couple
> > days after one of these discussions a couple years ago; I think I passed
> > one vehicle on the way to work (a semi-truck carrying some large
> > structural-looking roof pieces) and never got out of the right lane on
> > the way home. Not only was I the slowest car on the road but I felt
> > like a rock in a stream, I was constantly worried about being hit from
> > behind, I was so far out of the main flow of traffic.
>
> No, everyone is NOT speeding, at *anytime* of day, *anywhere* in the
> country. That assertion is so obviously exagerration that it detracts
> from the validity of damn near everything else you may post. And... if
> everyone else IS speeding, you have no beef against Sloths, the main
> topic of this thread.

I do not exaggerate one bit. Following the speed limit makes you
literally the slowest vehicle on the road, barring the presence of an
overloaded tractor-trailer.

>
> Congratulations on your brief experience driving the speed limit. It
> wasn't that hard, was it?

It was ****ing scary. I aborted the experiment after a couple days
because I felt that I was putting myself at a greatly increased risk of
collision. Tractor trailers were forcing their way into the middle
lane to get around me, I was constantly tailgated, etc.

> I've driven at or about the limit since
> about 1980, from coast to coast and border to border and I haven't
> experienced any of your problems. It's a matter of expectations and
> perspective. Most drivers expect to enter the highway and find no
> obstacles to their travel even though that has never happened to them.
> They expect to enter the highway and find every other vehicle concerned
> with their travel while at the same time having no consideration for
> anyone but themselves.
>

I *do* drive with consideration for others, and I resent the
implication that I'm yet another MFFY driver.

> > > "Too fast for conditions" is subjective as well... until there's a
> > > crash. Limits are not arbritary.
> >
> > Most US limits *ARE* arbitrary.
>
> Cite?

Most US limits are not set according to recommended guidelines (85th
percentile) rather by arbitrarily set legislated maxima. This is a
fact that is obvious to anyone who's driven.

>
> > > The 85th percentile is too fast for
> > > most drivers already operating at that velocity, probably all of the
> > > elderly and student and new drivers.
> >
> > Cite?
>
> I need to cite that the 85th percentile speed is too fast for the
> elderly and student and new drivers...?!

Sure you do. I think the fact that you apparently disagree with anyone
who's done any kind of rigorous, unbiased study of the subject since
the 1960's (e.g. Solomon or Cirillo) needs some supporting
documentation.

>
> <quote> Speeding is one of the most prevalent factors contributing to
> traffic crashes. The economic cost to society of speeding-related
> crashes is estimated by NHTSA to be $40.4 billion per year. In 2003,
> speeding was a contributing factor in 31 percent of all fatal crashes,
> and 13,380 lives were lost in speeding-related crashes.
>

The NHTSA is an organization with little to no credibility, only
slightly better than the IIHS.

> Motor vehicle crashes cost society an estimated $7,300 per second. The
> total economic cost of crashes was estimated at $230.6 billion in 2000.
> The 2000 costs of speeding-related crashes were estimated to be $40.4
> billion - $76,865 per minute or $1,281 per second.
>
> Speeding reduces a driver's ability to steer safely around curves or
> objects in the roadway, extends the distance necessary to stop a
> vehicle, and increases the distance a vehicle travels while the driver
> reacts to a dangerous situation. </quote>
>
> http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd...003/809771.pdf
>
> http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/
>
> > > The limit has to be set to limit
> > > the differential in speeds between the best and worst drivers, or the
> > > slowest and fastest drivers if you prefer. (That's why 20 over in VA
> > > is considered reckless. If that speed were "perfectly safe"... there
> > > would be no traffic deaths at that speed. That isn't the case, is it?)
> > > It's not even driving skill that's solely involved, it's large, slow
> > > vehicles as well.
> > >
> >
> > I can't say there's *no* traffic deaths at that speed, but since 75-85
> > MPH is often the main flow of traffic on I-95 (speed limit 55 or 65
> > depending on location) it stands to reason that of course if anyone
> > wrecks it is likely that that is what their speed is found to be.
>
> Duh...
>

Indeed. So how can you say that speed is the cause?

> > > I think we'd agree that most drivers don't drive very well, for
> > > whatever reason. Hell, there's people with one eye and monocular
> > > vision, bad or less than good vision, the deaf, the stupid, the
> > > semi-retarded, amputees and paraplegics and new drivers with zero days
> > > of experience that all need to drive. The roads need to be safe enough
> > > for them to travel too!
> > >
> >
> > So let's stop focusing on speed and start focusing on things that will
> > actually make the road safer!
>
> Why exclude speed? ""In 2003, speeding was a contributing factor in 31
> percent of all fatal crashes, and 13,380 lives were lost in
> speeding-related crashes."" Thirty-one percent of fatal crashes.
> What, that isn't a significant enough number for ya?
>

Let me guess, you got that from NHTSA or IIHS as well.

> > >>Sure, but my point was that there are laws on the books that actually
> > >>*do* make sense, such as keep right except to pass, which when followed,
> > >>are beneficial to ALL concerned with no downside to anyone.
>
> HOW does the speed limit fail to "make sense"? It seems to me that
> faster speeds may have a detrimental effect on "someone"! It
> compromises the safety of everyone, but especially ME!
>

Artificially low speed limits compromise the safety of everyone.

> You seem to think you drive in a perfect world... even though you cite
> your own examples of bad driving. Ya know, I'll bet speeds *would* be
> set to the 85th percentile if simply most drivers displayed some common
> sense. One problem as I see it is that a majority of drivers don't
> want to drive "behind" *anybody*! They seem to think that the best way
> to achieve that goal is to drive 30 feet behind traffic going 75-85
> mph! That may seem reasonable to you, it doesn't to me. They're
> willing to do that *and* violate the speed limit.
>

Improper following distance has nothing to do with speed.

> > > The speed limit does make sense. Just not to you because you haven't
> > > taken into consideration all the factors.
> > >
> >
> > What factors? Some politician pulled a number out of his ass and
> > slapped it on a sign. Why should I care? Now if it WERE set properly,
> > I might agree with your point.
>
> > >>Yes, as long as they KRETP. But practically nobody does. The right
> > >>hand lane has become basically one big long ramp where I drive - as soon
> > >>as someone is squarely on the highway they're looking to change lanes to
> > >>the left, whether or not anyone's in front of them. I don't know where
> > >>this irrational fear of the right lane comes from, but I've actually
> > >>been cut off - and not just once or twice either - while simply driving
> > >>in the middle lane by someone who is moving left and still isn't up to
> > >>speed yet. If you want to avoid this mess, you have to move to the very
> > >>leftmost lane, which explains why LLBing is so prevalent. Simply ****
> > >>poor driving, not related to speed in any way.
> > >
> > >
> > > So... these ****-poor drivers should be permitted to drive faster? I
> > > think not.
> > >
> >
> > No, they should be ticketed repeatedly until they lose their license.
> > Those of us driving safely should be permitted to drive faster.
>
> How should they be ticketed? They don't act that way when cops are
> present! If they did, they would!
>

Sure they do. I just posted recently about seeing three blatant
violations occur in front of a county cop, who did nothing
(motorcyclist pulling a wheelstand in traffic, one car with no lights
after dark, and one with high beams on in traffic.) The fact is that
cops don't write the violations they should.

> The R lane behavioral phenomena you cite happens because nobody want to
> deal with traffic entering and exiting the highway... and they don't
> want to drive "behind" *anybody*... but they're fine with you dealing
> with their incompetent merge into the next lane.
>

Indeed. That's just simple MFFY, not speed-related.

> Another problem is ****-poor interchange design with tons of traffic
> attempting to merge both entering and exiting the highway in a quarter
> to half-mile or less. But people want low taxes *and* a
> state-of-the-art highway system and they can only have one of the two.
>

The highways I drive on have adequate ramps and lots of space between
exits, for the most part.

> Nobody ever thought the NMSL would be repealed so much of the
> interstate system was designed from 1973-on with a 55 mph limit in
> mind. That's *another* reason your 85th percentile limit is doomed.

Nobody thought the NMSL would last as long as it did! It was never a
safety measure until Joan Claybrook said it was (with very specious
reasoning behind it.) We and especially NHTSA are just now starting to
recover from her negative influence on traffic safety,

>
> > >>Another item - people think that because they are driving the speed
> > >>limit or above, that gives them the right to move left at any time
> > >>without checking their mirrors. I don't know how many times I've heard
> > >>this - "I don't know why this guy was following so close/blinking his
> > >>left turn signal/flashing his lights at me, I mean, I was going 5 over!"
> > >> This is the kind of inconsiderate and unsafe driving that our
> > >>obsession with speed and speed limits fosters; people wh focus on their
> > >>speed as the determining factor as to whether they are "safe" or not,
> > >>and ignoring everything else.
> > >
> > >
> > > Are you referring to the "following too close/flashing lights and turn
> > > signal driver" when you mention "inconsiderate and unsafe driving"? Or
> > > the guy who was minding his own ****ing business rolling along at 5
> > > over? The latter has the right-of-way and,
> >
> > No, he most certainly does not. Research the laws in your state.
>
> No. You research and post yours.
>

My state is one of the unusual few that *doesn't* have such a law, but
if you google for "John Carr Keep Right" you will find a summary of
such laws in ALL states. As it is I do most of my driving in a state
that *does* have such a law but my observations are the same there.

> I'm certain that if the driver to the rear strikes the driver to his
> front the former will not be cited for failure to yield. Same
> scenario, driver to the front comes to a full ****ing stop in the L
> lane for no reason at all; the driver that strikes him will be cited
> for *something*! Same with the driver to *his* rear. You can't crash
> into the vehicle to your front for any reason, therefore the vehicle in
> the front owns the right-of-way over the vehicles to their immediate
> rear. It's identical in chain-reaction crashes, each vehicle that
> strikes any vehicle to their front is cited for something.
>

Who is found at fault in a collision has nothing to do with who is
legally required to yield the right of way.

> > > according to your
> > > description, was the driver operating more safely in my estimation. If
> > > he wasn't KRETP then he's breaking the law, sure.
> >
> > Ayup.
> >
> > > That doesn't allow
> > > the driver to the rear the right to also break the law and jeapordize
> > > the other driver's safety in order to violate the speed limit to a
> > > further degree. And... these are the driver's you'd like to share the
> > > road with... except at a higher velocity?
> >
> > I'm not condoning following too closely, but since LLBers seem to be
> > immune to the left turn signal and a headlight flash is often
> > interpreted as a rude signal (and often as not followed by a brake
> > check) it's perfectly understandable. Left turn signals and headlight
> > flashes are and have been for years a signal that the following driver
> > would like the leading driver to move over. It's only in recent years
> > that LLBers have become all self-righteous about it instead of just
> > moving out of the way and admitting that they may have been inattentive
> > for a minute.
>
> There's no *understandable* reason to drive dangerously, for following
> too closely or brake checking. Any jury will probably agree with me on
> this point.
>

Indeed. The point that I was making is that LLBers do not generally
respond to accepted signals so following too close in the passing lane
is often the only way to get them to move. I do not condone this
behavior, I'm just saying that it's understandable why it happens. If
police were more willing to write tickets for LLBing perhaps people
would mellow out some.

> > > You've cited examples of bad driving. Do you feel that if speed limits
> > > were set to the 85th percentile people would drive differently?! You'd
> > > see the same asshole behavior, only at higher speeds. But... you don't
> > > anticipate that as a problem?
> > >
> >
> > NO, I anticipate that as a solution! You see, those "higher speeds" are
> > already the speeds people are driving at. So the roads aren't going to
> > be any *less* safe... but the police won't be able to write all those
> > speeding tickets anymore. So they'll have to find something to write up
> > motorists for...
>
> The solution is to allow bad drivers to drive as fast as they already
> do now... except without the spector of receiving a ticket? WHAT
> problem does THAT solve...?!

It allows police to have the resources to ticket actual dangerous
behavior, assuming that they have the will to do so.

>
> > > Perchance that you are thinking of hopping on the old horse that says
> > > that people drive that way because they're frustrated because speed
> > > limits are set too low... I feel people unable or unwilling to control
> > > their frustrated emotions at the present limits should not be allowed
> > > to drive faster.
> > >
> >
> > No, they drive aggressively not because the speed limits are too low
> > (they are, but they're universally ignored unless in visual range of a
> > police officer) but because either a) they're assholes and just want to
> > get ahead at the expense of others or b) they are trying to break free
> > of a LLB-induced traffic clot.
>
> Duh. Traffic is going as fast as it is. The cooperative solution is
> to go with the flow and not to try to break free of the LLB induced
> traffic clot. You'll break free anyway, just not as fast or soon as
> you'd like. You may find that notion unpleasant, but it's the best
> solution. Exhibiting a little patience isn't that difficult, people
> just don't *want* to. The result is too often a crash, delaying their
> travel quite a bit more. Oh, they've got time for that...
>
> Speed limits cannot and will not be based on the best-case scenario.

Why not? That's how they should be based. Speed limits should be an
upper bound speed under good conditions, not a "moral minimum" as they
are now.

> They can't even be based on what's likely to happen. They must be
> based on what could and does happen, and try to limit the death and
> destruction that ensues. That includes a multitude of events from tire
> blow-outs to pedestians. Sure, pedestrians shouldn't be on the
> highway... but they are. Cars breakdown and people run out of gas and
> people slow and stop to come to their assistance.
>

So by your reasoning freeway speed limits should be 35 MPH because that
might be the maximum safe speed for an unloaded pickup truck in the
snow.

> LLB's and Sloths are not the real problems. The problem is how people
> react to them. Believing otherwise is rationalization in it's purest
> form. You can't control the driving of other people, you can only
> control one vehicle at a time, yours.

That's true. (the fact that I can only control my vehicle, that is.)
However, if LLBers and others who engage in aggressive (yet slow)
driving maneuvers would just knock it the hell off and start driving
cooperatively, fast and slow drivers actually could coexist on the same
roadway peacefully, as they do in other countries where enforcement
priorities aren't so screwed up.

nate