A New Category of Sloth

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

I think you understand the meaning of the phrase and simple refuse to
answer the question.

gpsman wrote:
> 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.
>

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.

>
>>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.

Most US limits *ARE* arbitrary.

> 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?

> 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.

> 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!


>
>>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.
>

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.

>
>>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.

> 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.

>>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?
>

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...

> 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.

>
>>>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...

Usually not so radically without at least one person being wrong.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

gpsman wrote:
> 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
>

So obviously the speed limit should be 4.5 MPH then and then everyone
will be safe.

*snork*

get it through your head, slower does not mean safer! Almost never is a
crash caused by speed and only speed - usually it's driver inattention,
error, etc. and speed is only a contrtibuting factor to how severe it
is. Without the other factor the crash wouldn't have happened at all.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

"Harry K" > wrote in
oups.com:

>
> 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
>
>

So,you want traffic to clump up.Not very safe.
Or,you are saying that Americans cannot drive like the Europeans do (or
used to do)on the German Autobahn.

Or if there's a slow truck,everybody must slow to near it's speed so they
aren't "significantly faster".

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

(Brent P) wrote in
:

> 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.
>
>
>

Most crashes are caused by other reasons,not due to speed.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

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.

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

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

Cite?

> > 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...?!

<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.

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...

> > 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?

> >>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!

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.

> > 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!

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.

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.

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.

> >>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.

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.

> > 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.

> > 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...?!

> > 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.
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.

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.
-----

- gpsman

> No, everyone is NOT speeding, at *anytime* of day, *anywhere* in the
> country.

You've just lost all credibility, man. -Dave

Mike T. wrote:
> > No, everyone is NOT speeding, at *anytime* of day, *anywhere* in the
> > country.
>
> You've just lost all credibility, man. -Dave
-----

My credibility with the mentally impaired is of no consequence.
-----

- gpsman

gpsman wrote:

> No, everyone is NOT speeding, at *anytime* of day, *anywhere* in the
> country.

I have a speed survey conducted by the WVDOT on I-64/I-77 through
Charleston WV in late 1997. It states that 0% are going below 50 mph,
23% are going below 55 mph, 73 percent are going below 60 and 85 percent
are going below 62 mph.

The posted limit at the time was 50 mph.

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.

So you can imagine how much fun I have with a Jaguar 3.0 X-Type putting
out the same amount of power through the same number of driven wheels
as a WRX only *without* a turbo (Can you say, "no lag"? I knew you
could.). Weight is only about 100 pounds more, so you need to be
careful who you mess with. ;^) Some clown in an old Probe found that
out last night while trying to 'stop light race' the Jag. All it took
was first gear ...

> Ding-dong last night turned onto the same sideroad I did, so proceeded todo 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 noone
> to screw with once I wasn't behind him.

Hostess® products just shouldn't be allowed to drive. =8^D
--
C.R. Krieger
(Been there; done that)