Speed limit vigilante sent to jail

Brent P wrote:
> In article . com>, wrote:
> >
> > Brent P wrote:
> >> In article .com>, wrote:
> >>
> >> > I know yourr position just fine-it just happens to be wrong.
> >>
> >> Nate is correct, you're wrong. You're too lazy to plan so you expect
> >> others to block traffic for you.
> >
> > Others block traffic for me? Not at all.
>
> When someone slows, they slow everyone behind them, block them, for you.

First off, blocking and slowing are different things. Second off, no
it doesn't. I did it today twice. I told you this multiple times and
there was no congestion as you continually claim.

>
> > As a matter of fact never
> > ever. As for "lazy planning", are you smoking crack? Changing lanes
> > is apart of driving just as traffic lights are. So my planning
> > consists of signalling, and waiting to be let in just as I let those in
> > that signal.
>
> Your planing is insufficent, lazy. You expect others to do the work of
> the lane change for you. To make a space for you instead of you finding
> one and slipping into it. You're a lazy driver.

No one can change lanes for me. That is an impossibility. Changing
lanes is apart of life as tax's. IF you refuse to let people in, than
you are an A class asshole (as you put it). Plain & simple.

>
> > But I do expect people to show some courtesy. For instance if I am
> > signalling and need to change lanes. If they see my signal I do expect
> > them to let me in (most people do).
>
> That's a demand for special treatment. You expect people to delay
> themselves and everyone behind them, for you.

Not special treatment. NORMAL treatment. Since normal people are
courteous. Most drivers are normal and courteous. The exception is
you.

> > If they don't I do take a mental
> > note of who they are (I live in a place where you often see the same
> > people) and if I see them I will extend the same amount of rudeness
> > given the chance. It's funny to see them get all mad then as they
> > don't remember that they did the same thing to someone else only hours
> > or days earlier. Road rage.
>
> I don't need other people to 'let me in'. I get by in life without this
> demand on other people. Maybe it's because I know the true definition of
> courtesy and that's not to make myself a problem for other people.

You are wrong again. Others have indeed let you in. There is not a
snowballs chance in hell that people have not seen you, and let you in.
Using your logic you don't even look when changing lanes.

> > But I must say I am marvelling at your attempt to rationalize your poor
> > driving skills and discourteous behaviour.
>
> Nice projection. If you knew how to drive you wouldn't need anyone to let
> you in. See, I know how to drive. I am able to find gaps in traffic and
> make my lane changes without someone being forced to slow down for me.

I know how to drive (which is much better than you). You have road
rage to the max. Please get help. I know for a fact you're going to
get into your car in the morning and look for others to **** them off.
I use to be like you.

> You're like that asshole I encountered last week. Changed lanes a few
> feet in front of me and then decided to brake test me after cutting me
> off because he didn't like the following distance. Probably something
> you'd do, expecting the world to cater to your needs.

Oh no, I feel no need to **** off others unlike you. I signal, enter.
It's that simple.
But according to your example the guy did exactly what you're saying he
should have done. That is change lanes on his own without looking for
clearance. According to you, as long as you fit-enter. So why you are
mad at him is unclear as you have no consistency in your argument. And
THEN you get mad at him for getting in. I bet you got pleasure from
that, didn't you. Did you get erect? Aroused?

On 4 Jul 2006 01:00:04 -0700, wrote:

>
>Brent P wrote:
>> In article . com>, wrote:
>> >
>> > Brent P wrote:
>> >> In article .com>, wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > I know yourr position just fine-it just happens to be wrong.
>> >>
>> >> Nate is correct, you're wrong. You're too lazy to plan so you expect
>> >> others to block traffic for you.
>> >
>> > Others block traffic for me? Not at all.
>>
>> When someone slows, they slow everyone behind them, block them, for you.
>
>First off, blocking and slowing are different things. Second off, no
>it doesn't. I did it today twice. I told you this multiple times and
>there was no congestion as you continually claim.
>
>>
>> > As a matter of fact never
>> > ever. As for "lazy planning", are you smoking crack? Changing lanes
>> > is apart of driving just as traffic lights are. So my planning
>> > consists of signalling, and waiting to be let in just as I let those in
>> > that signal.
>>
>> Your planing is insufficent, lazy. You expect others to do the work of
>> the lane change for you. To make a space for you instead of you finding
>> one and slipping into it. You're a lazy driver.
>
>No one can change lanes for me. That is an impossibility. Changing
>lanes is apart of life as tax's. IF you refuse to let people in, than
>you are an A class asshole (as you put it). Plain & simple.

No one should have to "let" people in.

The person changing lanes should arrange it such that no one else has to do
something special in reaction to their driving.

The way you do this, is you fall back from whoever you're following, find a
spot in the traffic in the other lane that has no car in it, then accelerate
and change lanes into that spot. No one else should have to do anything.
Expecting it is a sure way to be disappointed.

>> > But I do expect people to show some courtesy. For instance if I am
>> > signalling and need to change lanes. If they see my signal I do expect
>> > them to let me in (most people do).
>>
>> That's a demand for special treatment. You expect people to delay
>> themselves and everyone behind them, for you.
>
>Not special treatment. NORMAL treatment.

Noooo....

>Since normal people are
>courteous. Most drivers are normal and courteous. The exception is
>you.

No, he's right, you're wrong. No one else should have to react to something
you do by braking, swerving, anything. If you do anything that requires them
to react, _you_ are the discourteous one.

>> > If they don't I do take a mental
>> > note of who they are (I live in a place where you often see the same
>> > people) and if I see them I will extend the same amount of rudeness
>> > given the chance. It's funny to see them get all mad then as they
>> > don't remember that they did the same thing to someone else only hours
>> > or days earlier. Road rage.
>>
>> I don't need other people to 'let me in'. I get by in life without this
>> demand on other people. Maybe it's because I know the true definition of
>> courtesy and that's not to make myself a problem for other people.
>
>You are wrong again. Others have indeed let you in. There is not a
>snowballs chance in hell that people have not seen you, and let you in.
> Using your logic you don't even look when changing lanes.

No one has to "let me in" either. They don't have to change their speed or
path even slightly when I change lanes. That's the way it should be done.

>> > But I must say I am marvelling at your attempt to rationalize your poor
>> > driving skills and discourteous behaviour.
>>
>> Nice projection. If you knew how to drive you wouldn't need anyone to let
>> you in. See, I know how to drive. I am able to find gaps in traffic and
>> make my lane changes without someone being forced to slow down for me.
>
>I know how to drive (which is much better than you). You have road
>rage to the max. Please get help. I know for a fact you're going to
>get into your car in the morning and look for others to **** them off.
>I use to be like you.

No one should have to "let" you in. You should know how to do it without
expecting special driving from someone else, mainly because they may not do it.
If they don't, then you may get in an accident, or at the least you'll end up
disappointed, probably angry.

When I change lanes, its a non-event no matter what the guy in the other lane
does or doesn't do. They don't have to react to my driving in the least.

Dave Head

Dave Head wrote:
> On 4 Jul 2006 01:00:04 -0700, wrote:
>
>
>>Brent P wrote:
>>
>>>In article . com>, wrote:
>>>
>>>>Brent P wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article .com>, wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I know yourr position just fine-it just happens to be wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>Nate is correct, you're wrong. You're too lazy to plan so you expect
>>>>>others to block traffic for you.
>>>>
>>>>Others block traffic for me? Not at all.
>>>
>>>When someone slows, they slow everyone behind them, block them, for you.
>>
>>First off, blocking and slowing are different things. Second off, no
>>it doesn't. I did it today twice. I told you this multiple times and
>>there was no congestion as you continually claim.
>>
>>
>>>> As a matter of fact never
>>>>ever. As for "lazy planning", are you smoking crack? Changing lanes
>>>>is apart of driving just as traffic lights are. So my planning
>>>>consists of signalling, and waiting to be let in just as I let those in
>>>>that signal.
>>>
>>>Your planing is insufficent, lazy. You expect others to do the work of
>>>the lane change for you. To make a space for you instead of you finding
>>>one and slipping into it. You're a lazy driver.
>>
>>No one can change lanes for me. That is an impossibility. Changing
>>lanes is apart of life as tax's. IF you refuse to let people in, than
>>you are an A class asshole (as you put it). Plain & simple.
>
>
> No one should have to "let" people in.
>
> The person changing lanes should arrange it such that no one else has to do
> something special in reaction to their driving.
>
> The way you do this, is you fall back from whoever you're following, find a
> spot in the traffic in the other lane that has no car in it, then accelerate
> and change lanes into that spot. No one else should have to do anything.
> Expecting it is a sure way to be disappointed.
>
>
>>>>But I do expect people to show some courtesy. For instance if I am
>>>>signalling and need to change lanes. If they see my signal I do expect
>>>>them to let me in (most people do).
>>>
>>>That's a demand for special treatment. You expect people to delay
>>>themselves and everyone behind them, for you.
>>
>>Not special treatment. NORMAL treatment.
>
>
> Noooo....
>
>
>>Since normal people are
>>courteous. Most drivers are normal and courteous. The exception is
>>you.
>
>
> No, he's right, you're wrong. No one else should have to react to something
> you do by braking, swerving, anything. If you do anything that requires them
> to react, _you_ are the discourteous one.
>
>
>>>>If they don't I do take a mental
>>>>note of who they are (I live in a place where you often see the same
>>>>people) and if I see them I will extend the same amount of rudeness
>>>>given the chance. It's funny to see them get all mad then as they
>>>>don't remember that they did the same thing to someone else only hours
>>>>or days earlier. Road rage.
>>>
>>>I don't need other people to 'let me in'. I get by in life without this
>>>demand on other people. Maybe it's because I know the true definition of
>>>courtesy and that's not to make myself a problem for other people.
>>
>>You are wrong again. Others have indeed let you in. There is not a
>>snowballs chance in hell that people have not seen you, and let you in.
>>Using your logic you don't even look when changing lanes.
>
>
> No one has to "let me in" either. They don't have to change their speed or
> path even slightly when I change lanes. That's the way it should be done.
>
>
>>>>But I must say I am marvelling at your attempt to rationalize your poor
>>>>driving skills and discourteous behaviour.
>>>
>>>Nice projection. If you knew how to drive you wouldn't need anyone to let
>>>you in. See, I know how to drive. I am able to find gaps in traffic and
>>>make my lane changes without someone being forced to slow down for me.
>>
>>I know how to drive (which is much better than you). You have road
>>rage to the max. Please get help. I know for a fact you're going to
>>get into your car in the morning and look for others to **** them off.
>>I use to be like you.
>
>
> No one should have to "let" you in. You should know how to do it without
> expecting special driving from someone else, mainly because they may not do it.
> If they don't, then you may get in an accident, or at the least you'll end up
> disappointed, probably angry.
>
> When I change lanes, its a non-event no matter what the guy in the other lane
> does or doesn't do. They don't have to react to my driving in the least.
>
> Dave Head

is this idiot still babbling on about "courtesy?" just give up, it's
been explained to him well enough by enough people and he still Doesn't
Get It. Maybe he'll get transferred to Germany some day Too bad
that driving standards here in the US are so lax.

nate

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

In article >,
Bill Funk > wrote:
>On 03 Jul 2006 18:37:16 GMT, (John F. Carr) wrote:
>
>...
>> It's the same standard many
>>states use for rear-end collisions -- most of the
>>time the guy in back is at fault, so we'll make him
>>prove he isn't.
>...
>
>There are more reasons for the person in the back to be at fault than
>the person in front, in rear-enders.
>But, the law does not make you prove your innocense, as you imply. The
>prosecutor must still prove the person in back is at fault. They do
>not make him prove he isn't at fault.

I was talking about civil suits over damages. In a criminal case
the jury can't be required to find you guilty merely because you
hit somebody from behind. In a civil case, they can be, and in
some states they are.

(In my state, courts do not apply a presumption of fault but
insurance companies do.)

--
John Carr )

Dave Head wrote:
> On 4 Jul 2006 01:00:04 -0700, wrote:
>
> >
> >Brent P wrote:
> >> In article . com>, wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Brent P wrote:
> >> >> In article .com>, wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > I know yourr position just fine-it just happens to be wrong.
> >> >>
> >> >> Nate is correct, you're wrong. You're too lazy to plan so you expect
> >> >> others to block traffic for you.
> >> >
> >> > Others block traffic for me? Not at all.
> >>
> >> When someone slows, they slow everyone behind them, block them, for you.
> >
> >First off, blocking and slowing are different things. Second off, no
> >it doesn't. I did it today twice. I told you this multiple times and
> >there was no congestion as you continually claim.
> >
> >>
> >> > As a matter of fact never
> >> > ever. As for "lazy planning", are you smoking crack? Changing lanes
> >> > is apart of driving just as traffic lights are. So my planning
> >> > consists of signalling, and waiting to be let in just as I let those in
> >> > that signal.
> >>
> >> Your planing is insufficent, lazy. You expect others to do the work of
> >> the lane change for you. To make a space for you instead of you finding
> >> one and slipping into it. You're a lazy driver.
> >
> >No one can change lanes for me. That is an impossibility. Changing
> >lanes is apart of life as tax's. IF you refuse to let people in, than
> >you are an A class asshole (as you put it). Plain & simple.
>
> No one should have to "let" people in.

Everyone should. It's courtesy.
>
> The person changing lanes should arrange it such that no one else has to do
> something special in reaction to their driving.

Not necessarily. If it's very congested that that person will NEVER
get in using your "etiquette"

> The way you do this, is you fall back from whoever you're following, find a
> spot in the traffic in the other lane that has no car in it, then accelerate
> and change lanes into that spot. No one else should have to do anything.
> Expecting it is a sure way to be disappointed.

Good thing is there are MANY courteous drivers out there who do not
have a need to try and **** others off.


> >> > But I do expect people to show some courtesy. For instance if I am
> >> > signalling and need to change lanes. If they see my signal I do expect
> >> > them to let me in (most people do).
> >>
> >> That's a demand for special treatment. You expect people to delay
> >> themselves and everyone behind them, for you.
> >
> >Not special treatment. NORMAL treatment.
>
> Noooo....
>

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees....


> >Since normal people are
> >courteous. Most drivers are normal and courteous. The exception is
> >you.
>
> No, he's right, you're wrong. No one else should have to react to something
> you do by braking, swerving, anything. If you do anything that requires them
> to react, _you_ are the discourteous one.

No, you're wrong, and I am right. I've proved this multiple times
already. He said (and you are agreeing) it causes congestion. Yet in
the two experiments I did the past two days no congestion occurred.

> >> > If they don't I do take a mental
> >> > note of who they are (I live in a place where you often see the same
> >> > people) and if I see them I will extend the same amount of rudeness
> >> > given the chance. It's funny to see them get all mad then as they
> >> > don't remember that they did the same thing to someone else only hours
> >> > or days earlier. Road rage.
> >>
> >> I don't need other people to 'let me in'. I get by in life without this
> >> demand on other people. Maybe it's because I know the true definition of
> >> courtesy and that's not to make myself a problem for other people.
> >
> >You are wrong again. Others have indeed let you in. There is not a
> >snowballs chance in hell that people have not seen you, and let you in.
> > Using your logic you don't even look when changing lanes.
>
> No one has to "let me in" either. They don't have to change their speed or
> path even slightly when I change lanes. That's the way it should be done.

No, the do not have to "let you in" but if they have an ounce of
courtesy, they will.
As for no one "change their speed or path even " they have when you
changed lanes. I guarantee it. You don't want to admit it since it
goes against your claim, but they have.

> >> > But I must say I am marvelling at your attempt to rationalize your poor
> >> > driving skills and discourteous behaviour.
> >>
> >> Nice projection. If you knew how to drive you wouldn't need anyone to let
> >> you in. See, I know how to drive. I am able to find gaps in traffic and
> >> make my lane changes without someone being forced to slow down for me.
> >
> >I know how to drive (which is much better than you). You have road
> >rage to the max. Please get help. I know for a fact you're going to
> >get into your car in the morning and look for others to **** them off.
> >I use to be like you.
>
> No one should have to "let" you in. You should know how to do it without
> expecting special driving from someone else, mainly because they may not do it.
> If they don't, then you may get in an accident, or at the least you'll end up
> disappointed, probably angry.

Disappointed yes. Angry if I know they saw me, yes. But still they
should have let me in, yes. Common courtesy.


> When I change lanes, its a non-event no matter what the guy in the other lane
> does or doesn't do. They don't have to react to my driving in the least.

So obviously you don't signal since there is no need to according to
what you have described.

>
> Dave Head

wrote:
> Arif Khokar wrote:

>> I don't know about you, but IMO slowing down by 10 mph is significant.

> It isn't. Especially if going 10 over the speed limit (which is about
> average for me), then it just bring down to the speed limit.

It is significant unless you're already passing everyone.

>> Every car behind you that remains in the lane loses the additional 20 to
>> 40 feet of distance. That results in cars getting stuck at a traffic
>> light they otherwise would have made it through. Those that wouldn't
>> have anyway would now be several cars back and have to wait for the lead
>> cars to start up before they could move.

> As stated multiple times, there was no congestion. I checked by
> circling the block.

If someone has to let you in, then there is congestion by definition.
If there was enough room, then you wouldn't even need to search for a
gap since it would already be there. You're just increasing the
magnitude of it.

Have you ever heard or seen the phenomenon referred to as "rubber
necking?" That's the congestion caused by people slowing down to see
the result of a crash on the other side of the road. Traffic that
normally flows at 50 to 70 mph ends up slowing down to less than 20 mph
because people slow down to look at a crash scene (which doesn't affect
the carriageway they're on).

By letting people in instead of allow them to find a gap in traffic on
their own, you're creating the condition that will eventually lead to
traffic patterns that are very similar to rubber necking.

wrote:

> Today I was turning left onto a street, and I thought about this
> conversation. And using your guy's logic, turning at all (left or
> right) should be prohibited since it could cause cars to slow down.

That's essentially a strawman. Characterize the opposing sides argument
in the extreme and knock it down with a refutation that doesn't address
the original argument.

> Today I let a car in because he was waiting to turn right (in front of
> me). So I let him him.

Why not let him or her find a gap on their own? It will come eventually
and they can then accelerate up to speed before the vehicle's behind
them catch up. This way, no slowdown occurs and the turning movement is
still accomplished.

On 4 Jul 2006 10:36:38 -0700, wrote:

>
>Dave Head wrote:
>> On 4 Jul 2006 01:00:04 -0700, wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Brent P wrote:
>> >> In article . com>, wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Brent P wrote:
>> >> >> In article .com>, wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > I know yourr position just fine-it just happens to be wrong.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Nate is correct, you're wrong. You're too lazy to plan so you expect
>> >> >> others to block traffic for you.
>> >> >
>> >> > Others block traffic for me? Not at all.
>> >>
>> >> When someone slows, they slow everyone behind them, block them, for you.
>> >
>> >First off, blocking and slowing are different things. Second off, no
>> >it doesn't. I did it today twice. I told you this multiple times and
>> >there was no congestion as you continually claim.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> > As a matter of fact never
>> >> > ever. As for "lazy planning", are you smoking crack? Changing lanes
>> >> > is apart of driving just as traffic lights are. So my planning
>> >> > consists of signalling, and waiting to be let in just as I let those in
>> >> > that signal.
>> >>
>> >> Your planing is insufficent, lazy. You expect others to do the work of
>> >> the lane change for you. To make a space for you instead of you finding
>> >> one and slipping into it. You're a lazy driver.
>> >
>> >No one can change lanes for me. That is an impossibility. Changing
>> >lanes is apart of life as tax's. IF you refuse to let people in, than
>> >you are an A class asshole (as you put it). Plain & simple.
>>
>> No one should have to "let" people in.
>
>Everyone should. It's courtesy.
>>
>> The person changing lanes should arrange it such that no one else has to do
>> something special in reaction to their driving.
>
>Not necessarily. If it's very congested that that person will NEVER
>get in using your "etiquette"

I change lanes on the 3rd most congested roads in the USA, near DC. Nobody
hast to "let" me in. I change lanes, and they never have to do a thing to
accommodate, other than maybe re-establish a 2 second following distance if
that's what they normally do.

>> The way you do this, is you fall back from whoever you're following, find a
>> spot in the traffic in the other lane that has no car in it, then accelerate
>> and change lanes into that spot. No one else should have to do anything.
>> Expecting it is a sure way to be disappointed.
>
>Good thing is there are MANY courteous drivers out there who do not
>have a need to try and **** others off.

? Who ****es anybody off? I change lanes, nobody's ****ed off... or if they
are, it's _their_ problem, and they need to get professional help.

>> >> > But I do expect people to show some courtesy. For instance if I am
>> >> > signalling and need to change lanes. If they see my signal I do expect
>> >> > them to let me in (most people do).
>> >>
>> >> That's a demand for special treatment. You expect people to delay
>> >> themselves and everyone behind them, for you.
>> >
>> >Not special treatment. NORMAL treatment.
>>
>> Noooo....
>>
>
>Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees....
>
>
>> >Since normal people are
>> >courteous. Most drivers are normal and courteous. The exception is
>> >you.
>>
>> No, he's right, you're wrong. No one else should have to react to something
>> you do by braking, swerving, anything. If you do anything that requires them
>> to react, _you_ are the discourteous one.
>
>No, you're wrong, and I am right. I've proved this multiple times
>already. He said (and you are agreeing) it causes congestion. Yet in
>the two experiments I did the past two days no congestion occurred.

If you are in the lane to the left of the lane-changer, and you brake to let
him in, you create a wave of braking behind you that, under some circumstances,
can cause future braking for many minutes afterward.

>> >> > If they don't I do take a mental
>> >> > note of who they are (I live in a place where you often see the same
>> >> > people) and if I see them I will extend the same amount of rudeness
>> >> > given the chance. It's funny to see them get all mad then as they
>> >> > don't remember that they did the same thing to someone else only hours
>> >> > or days earlier. Road rage.
>> >>
>> >> I don't need other people to 'let me in'. I get by in life without this
>> >> demand on other people. Maybe it's because I know the true definition of
>> >> courtesy and that's not to make myself a problem for other people.
>> >
>> >You are wrong again. Others have indeed let you in. There is not a
>> >snowballs chance in hell that people have not seen you, and let you in.
>> > Using your logic you don't even look when changing lanes.
>>
>> No one has to "let me in" either. They don't have to change their speed or
>> path even slightly when I change lanes. That's the way it should be done.
>
>No, the do not have to "let you in" but if they have an ounce of
>courtesy, they will.

Why should they try, since I've already accomplished it before they know what's
happening?

>As for no one "change their speed or path even " they have when you
>changed lanes. I guarantee it. You don't want to admit it since it
>goes against your claim, but they have.

They might need to slow somewhat if they're uncomfortable with the resulting
following distance, but that's about it - no need to be braking and therefore
messing up the flow of traffic.

>> >> > But I must say I am marvelling at your attempt to rationalize your poor
>> >> > driving skills and discourteous behaviour.
>> >>
>> >> Nice projection. If you knew how to drive you wouldn't need anyone to let
>> >> you in. See, I know how to drive. I am able to find gaps in traffic and
>> >> make my lane changes without someone being forced to slow down for me.
>> >
>> >I know how to drive (which is much better than you). You have road
>> >rage to the max. Please get help. I know for a fact you're going to
>> >get into your car in the morning and look for others to **** them off.
>> >I use to be like you.
>>
>> No one should have to "let" you in. You should know how to do it without
>> expecting special driving from someone else, mainly because they may not do it.
>> If they don't, then you may get in an accident, or at the least you'll end up
>> disappointed, probably angry.
>
>Disappointed yes. Angry if I know they saw me, yes. But still they
>should have let me in, yes. Common courtesy.

Not courteous to those behind them if they go and brake to slow enough to let
you change lanes without you yourself first accelerating to the prevailing
speed of the lane you're changing into. Everyone else is in this conversation
is basically saying, "Accelerate to the speed of the lane you're changing into,
and then change lanes." This doesn't require any action of those already in
the lane you're changing to. But, you want to change lanes without
accelerating, slow the people down in that lane, while you _then_ increase your
speed to what the lane you changed into was already doing. That is the
scenario that requires the people to "let" you in, which is unnecessary if
_you_ have the common courtesy not to impede them in the 1st place.

>> When I change lanes, its a non-event no matter what the guy in the other lane
>> does or doesn't do. They don't have to react to my driving in the least.
>
>So obviously you don't signal since there is no need to according to
>what you have described.

Its true that signalling would be unnecessary in that situation, since no one
would really need to know what you're about to do.

Dave Head

>> Dave Head

Arif Khokar wrote:
> wrote:
> > Arif Khokar wrote:
>
> >> I don't know about you, but IMO slowing down by 10 mph is significant.
>
> > It isn't. Especially if going 10 over the speed limit (which is about
> > average for me), then it just bring down to the speed limit.
>
> It is significant unless you're already passing everyone.

Oh, you want to past everyone 100% 0f the time? My that is raging,
isn't it.
>
> >> Every car behind you that remains in the lane loses the additional 20 to
> >> 40 feet of distance. That results in cars getting stuck at a traffic
> >> light they otherwise would have made it through. Those that wouldn't
> >> have anyway would now be several cars back and have to wait for the lead
> >> cars to start up before they could move.
>
> > As stated multiple times, there was no congestion. I checked by
> > circling the block.
>
> If someone has to let you in, then there is congestion by definition.
> If there was enough room, then you wouldn't even need to search for a
> gap since it would already be there. You're just increasing the
> magnitude of it.

No, there is not congestion by definition. But nice try into changing
the definition. Otherwise every street would have congestion 24 hours
a day-even when a car is passing through only every few hours if just
one person lets another in.


>
> Have you ever heard or seen the phenomenon referred to as "rubber
> necking?" That's the congestion caused by people slowing down to see
> the result of a crash on the other side of the road. Traffic that
> normally flows at 50 to 70 mph ends up slowing down to less than 20 mph
> because people slow down to look at a crash scene (which doesn't affect
> the carriageway they're on).
>
> By letting people in instead of allow them to find a gap in traffic on
> their own, you're creating the condition that will eventually lead to
> traffic patterns that are very similar to rubber necking.


No, I am no. By simply slowing a few kph to create additional space
for someone to easily fit in (as opposed to them getting frustrated and
trying to squeeze in) is not creating any adverse condition-congestion
or otherwise.

Arif Khokar wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > Today I was turning left onto a street, and I thought about this
> > conversation. And using your guy's logic, turning at all (left or
> > right) should be prohibited since it could cause cars to slow down.
>
> That's essentially a strawman. Characterize the opposing sides argument
> in the extreme and knock it down with a refutation that doesn't address
> the original argument.

It's not an extreme. It's imply using your logic.

> > Today I let a car in because he was waiting to turn right (in front of
> > me). So I let him him.
>
> Why not let him or her find a gap on their own? It will come eventually
> and they can then accelerate up to speed before the vehicle's behind
> them catch up. This way, no slowdown occurs and the turning movement is
> still accomplished.

Because may take 10-15 minutes. Or it may NOT come for hours. This
way he gets in, and no one is adversely affected.