A New Category of Sloth

In article . com>, gpsman wrote:
> Nate Nagel wrote: <brevity snip>

> And your point is... speeding is fine because "everybody does it"?

Explain why a perfectly safe (demonstrated by people not crashing into
each other) speed that the vast majority of people travel at should not
be legal and how making it illegal is compatible with the concepts of
liberty under which this nation (USA) was founded.

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.

> 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 can do a track stand, but not for minutes at a time.

> Maybe put the training wheels back on?

Let's see you do better.

gpsman wrote:


> The fact that "they're" not delaying any traffic "behind" them is
> misconstrued as the optimal driving technique. **** the driver that
> wants to make a left turn in front of them. He's going in the opposite
> direction! My actions have no effect on them!!! **** the driver who
> may want to pull out IN FRONT OF ME!?!? The goddamn NERVE! **** HIM!
> **** the driver who may want to pull out and turn in the opposite
> direction, he can wait because I need to get down to the next traffic
> control device so I can catch and bitch about the people I couldn't
> prevent from being in front of me. **** the driver merging onto the
> highway. I need to drive the 85th percentile speed in the R lane so I
> can get around all these LLB's and MFFY's in front of me.

The point you miss is that all the other drivers in the driving
situations you cite are the ones who do *not* have the right of way.
Drivers pulling out of side streets, making left turns, and merging onto
highways do not have the right of way.

The driver who is travelling on the main road and not making any turns
does have the right of way. Even those who choose to disregard speed
limits still yield to through traffic when merging, pulling out from a
side street or when preparing to take a left.

I speed (10, 15 and sometimes 20 over the limit), but I don't pull out
in front of people. I don't force other cars out of my way when merging
onto the interstate, and I don't time my left turn such that through
traffic coming in the opposite direction ends up slowing down to avoid
colliding with me.

As for the actions I described in the previous paragraph, I really don't
care what speed through traffic is going. I still will be able to
complete my turn or merge without disrupting them and I don't consider
it a problem if I have to wait another 5 seconds before I pull out to
pass, find a gap behind instead of ahead of another vehicle when trying
to merge, or wait a little longer to take a left turn or pull out from a
side street.

Jim Yanik wrote:
> Nate Nagel > wrote in
> :
>
> > gpsman wrote:
>
> >>
> >> But it seems to me that "where" the offenses are commited is as equally
> >> important as the offenses themselves. *Excessive* speeding puts
> >> drivers "where" their actions cause the most disruption, where traffic
> >> planners haven't planned for them to arrive. They prevent other
> >> drivers from pulling out as well as turning in front of them. Their
> >> frequent lane changes to avoid slower traffic does nothing to
> >> contribute (and is not *intended* to contribute) to the "flow" of any
> >> vehicle except their own.
> >
> > What is "excessive" speeding?
>
> It's faster than HE chooses to drive over the posted limit.
>
>
> --
> Jim Yanik
> jyanik
> at
> kua.net

My definition would be significantly exceeding the speed of traffic
flow whatever speed that may be.

Harry K

gpsman wrote:

> And that people driving the limit or slower aren't to blame for traffic
> problems and exactly the opposite is true, proportionately speaking.

Where's your evidence for this preposterous claim? You have none,
as you admit further down. So I suppose you have formed this
opinion based on observations. Can you give some examples of
these observations? To be specific, cases where a driver was
speeding (but not doing anything else wrong or illegal), and caused
a traffic problem.

> A driver operating above the minimum limit is well within their rights
> as a motorist as long as they KRETP.

99% of the abuse of sloths in this NG is directed at sloths who
didn't KRETP. Few, if any, people here care if someone is
slothing in the slow lane.

> C'mon, if 99.44% of drivers speed... then it stands to reason that
> the other 0.54% of drivers CAN'T be the problem!
> The percentages/ratio is too disproportionate.

Your statement is completely illogical. Compare it with this:

99.44% of people don't commit murder... it stands to reason
that the other 0.54% of people CAN'T be the problem!
The percentages/ratio is too disproportionate.

> And if they are a problem, they can't be *the*
> problem. It takes the remaining 99.44% to *make* it a problem...

Pity about all of us who object to being murdered!

In article >,
Scott en Aztlán <newsgroup> wrote:
>Here in SoCal, we have beattiful six-lane roads with 55 MPH speed
>limits - and a bunch of MORON SLOTHS who never make it up beyond 35 or
>40 MPH. For example, the Sloth Coasters let off the gas because they
>see a red light a half-mile away (never realizing it is impossible to
>"time" a sensor-controlled traffic signal, and that the sooner a
>vehicle arrives at the sensor loop the sooner the light will change).

Many sensor controlled signals are combination timer and sensor, at
least during heavy traffic times. They go by a fixed schedule, often
in sync with other lights on the roads, but will skip a phase if there
is nothing on the sensor. So getting to the sensor sooner won't help
unless it was just about time for the green phase to occur if something
was sensed.

There will usually be a "default green" direction (the larger street)
that the lights will switch to if nothing is seen on the other sensors.

Some sensors are only present at the front of the lane, while some
intersections have them placed further back.

Obviously, coasting or not coasting to a light that just turned red
depends on how the signals are controlled (and whether you are on the
road that get the "default green"), and whether there is already
traffic ahead stopped or stopping on the sensor.

Some places have pedestrian lights with countdowns. If these are
visible, then they can be used to tell how long the remaining green
time is, so that you can know if you'll make it.

Of course, familiarity with the roads and signals helps. But many
drivers probably pay too little attention to driving to notice how
things are on the roads that the drive on every day.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome.
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.

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

When waiting at the front of the queue at a red light, it pays to pay
attention to the previous green light phase (on roads you travel every
day, it should be familiar to you). When your light turns green, you
should already know from observation whether there are any potential
red light runners trying to race through the intersection. If there
are (occasionally), you can wait and avoid being hit. But usually
there are not, so you can go immediately without delay most of the time.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome.
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.

On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 09:46:45 -0800, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr."
> wrote:

>I've always maintained that speeding is the fundamental of MFFY driving

Talk about an unsupportable position. Most of thr MFFYs you see on the
roads are LLBs and other Sloths; the people who speed generally have
someplace to get to and don't waste their time blocking everyone else.
Speeders pass you efficiently and are gone - Sloths are the ones who
pull out of the strip mall parking lot directly in front of you,
forcing you to slam on your brakes to avoid a collision - and all
because they cannot bear to wait 5 seconds for you to pass by before
pulling out onto the street.

It's obvious which driver is the MFFY.

Nate Nagel wrote: <brevity snip>
> gpsman wrote:
> > Nate Nagel wrote: <brevity snip>
> >

> Well... since speed limits are supposedly enacted for the safety of and
> with the consent of the general public, if EVERYONE is speeding, the
> problem isn't with everyone, it's with the speed limit.

Agreed... since in reality *everyone* ISN'T speeding, there must be no
problem with the speed limit.

> Kind of what I thought. I would say that "excessive speeding" would be
> better described as "too fast for conditions." If you define it that
> way I might actually agree with you. But the fact is that where it is
> defined as xx MPH over an arbitrarily defined speed limit it's still
> arbitrary. Case in point, Virginia, where 20 over is automatic reckless
> and at the same time may be very close to the speed of the general flow
> of traffic on I-95 - and a perfectly safe speed for the road.

"Too fast for conditions" is subjective as well... until there's a
crash. Limits are not arbritary. The 85th percentile is too fast for
most drivers already operating at that velocity, probably all of the
elderly and student and new drivers. 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 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!

> 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.

The speed limit does make sense. Just not to you because you haven't
taken into consideration all the factors.

> 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.

> 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, 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. 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?

> The problem is unrelated to speed entirely. It's a culture of a few
> assholes that drive like assholes and get away with it, because the cops
> are too busy running radar and the rest of the motorists are too scared
> to even honk their horns. Speed has absolutely nothing to do with the
> problems that I see on our roads.

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?

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.

> > And I have no data to support my conclusion, no links to post; this is
> > all my opinion of what seems obvious to me after 1M miles of
> > *observant* driving in 49 states.
>
> I don't see how that is "obvious" as my observations are completely
> different.

Opinions differ...
-----

- gpsman

Brent P wrote:
> In article . com>, gpsman wrote:
> > Nate Nagel wrote: <brevity snip>
>
> > And your point is... speeding is fine because "everybody does it"?
>
> Explain why a perfectly safe (demonstrated by people not crashing into
> each other) speed that the vast majority of people travel at should not
> be legal and how making it illegal is compatible with the concepts of
> liberty under which this nation (USA) was founded.
-----

There is no such thing as a "perfectly safe" speed since cops at zero
mph on the ****ing shoulder are struck and killed. People sitting in
their living rooms are struck and killed! And people do crash into
each other, at all speeds, all too frequently. A 5 mph crash happened
right in front of me last week as I waited to pull out of a parking
lot.

You explain the rest to me...
-----

- gpsman