Slower traffic: keep one lane left of the right lane

On 12/19/2013 10:14 AM, None wrote:
> <the little > took this crap in the newsgroup:

> Little Chrisssssie Kbaby shouldn't be expected to post like a grownup.
> He's just too Stupid. So Stupid that he seems to think that people can
> read his mind just because he blinks some lights. He's also bragged
> about tailgating too close, and several other ways he likes to Drive
> While Stupid. Little Chrissie K-moron isn't the sharpest tool in the
> shed. He wishes everyone were as Stupid as he is, but that's some
> serious Stupid he's got going on! DWS. Driving While Stupid.

tl; dr

He's borderline retarded.

On 12/18/2013 09:48 AM, Sancho Panza wrote:
> On 12/18/2013 8:50 AM, Arif Khokar wrote:

>> Slowing down makes it more difficult for me to merge behind you. When
>> I'm the one preparing to merge, I pick a car in the right lane that's
>> not being tailgated and adjust my speed such that I can catch up to it
>> and merge right behind it. If you see me and start slowing down, that's
>> going to make it a bit harder for me to do that.
>
> That is doable in some situations. But a lot trickier in dense traffic.

Not really. My car only about 15 feet long. If traffic is dense, I'll
find a smaller gap and merge into that, even if it forces the tailgating
vehicle to slow down to open up a gap.

> ---
> This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus
> protection is active.
> http://www.avast.com

When I use Avast, it just added headers to my email or posts to
newsgroups stating that it had scanned the message. You should
configure your program to do the same rather than adding text to the
body that's not even delimited by a proper sig marker.

On Thursday, December 19, 2013 3:57:45 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> Harry K wrote "...You can avoid all the problems with your mythical 'ass hats' by just getting one lane over, keeping up with traffic and staying there until you are about ready to exit. "

> All you're doing Harry is encouraging right-hand lane passing.

> On a typical three lane interstate, such as I-95, the rules are, keep right except to pass. The right lane is the main travel lane for outsized vehicles, such as tractor-trailers and buses, and for automobiles and motorcycles **observing the posted speed limits**. How difficult is that to understand?

> The center lane is for autombiles, cycles, and light trucks who want to travel faster than the trucks in the right-hand lane. It also serves as passing for large trucks & buses.

> The left-most lane is for automotive/cycle passing - period.

> The key to all the above working is *observing posted speed limits* in the right-most lane. Drivers getting on should have no trouble merging from on-ramp into that lane if traffic in that lane is AT or slightly BELOW the speed limit.

> Under the Harry K(and o.p.) system everyone getting on said I-95 would have to merge across the right-most lane, risking getting rear-ended by all the other Harry Ks passing on the right at some 60-70mph!

Try reading for comprehension. One lane left AND KEEP UP WITH TRAFFIC. Where do I mention ANYTHING about passing on the right? One lane left will be as bit faster than the rightmost in most conditions.

I am talking about congested conditions in a metro environment were exits/exits are closely spaced. On open roads the KRETP works best and is the law in most places.

Harry K

On 2013-12-20, Alan Baker > wrote:
> On 2013-12-19 02:20:20 +0000, Brent said:
>
>>>>>>> Sorry, but I don't put my safety into the hands of others when I can
>>>>>>> possibly avoid it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Most lazy drivers are just lazy, not suicidal. Thus not showing them a
>>>>>> reaction prevents them from doing what would bring about a collision.
>>>>>> When I stopped having any reaction they could see, the less idiocy they
>>>>>> did.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you think the best way to ensure your safety is to HOPE the other
>>>>> driver doesn't get it wrong?
>>>>
>>>> There's no hope involved. I am fully aware of him and ready to take
>>>> action to avoid him. I just don't let him know it,doing so is an
>>>> engraved invitation for him to cut me off from his POV.
>>>
>>> Pre-emptive action to avoid a threat is better than reaction...
>>> ...sorry, but it just is.
>>
>> Then you think you're safe and the asshat decides since you made way
>> for him once you'll do it twice. Ever see someone about to turn out on
>
> Your thesis is that the "asshat" is oblivious to my presence, so that
> won't wash.

Re-read. I never stated that. Most of them are simply lazy. They see
someone flinch and then they know they have an invite to be lazy.

>> a road so you slow down and then they wait and they wait and you're
>> about 5 feet from them and they pull out? Know how I reduced that? I
>> stopped taking "pre-emptive action". Stopped giving these lazy asshats
>> a tell. Same thing when they are merging. I move over for one of these
>> people and guess what happens next? They decide the right lane isn't
>> good enough for them and since I accomodated them once.... They just
>> plow into the next lane to the left.

> That's possible, but irrelevant. Leaving yourself in the right lane
> with people you describe as "asshats" merging into it and leaving it to
> them to avoid you places you at greater risk.

Lazy asshats do not avoid. They try to force the labor of driving on to
others, they try to force other people to change course and speed to
avoid them such that they don't have to put in effort to drive.

> By your reasoning, there's no point in opening an adequate following
> distance, because an "asshat" will just fill it.

Huh? is this your create-strawmen reponse?


>>>>>>> That's why I'll move one lane to the left if there is anyone whose
>>>>>>> entry to the highway could potentially cause me trouble.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IME those who move over largely put their safety in the hands of the
>>>>>> drivers already there and passing. Also moving over a lane just
>>>>>> encourages the idiot to merge two lanes in IME. He wants to be in the
>>>>>> left lane anyway and by moving over I showed that I see him and would
>>>>>> accomodate him so he cuts in front of me.
>>>>>
>>>>> I find it hilarious that on the one hand you'll insist that I needn't
>>>>> move over because you have such faith in the other driver who's merging
>>>>> into my lane...
>>>>
>>>> I don't and it's hilarious you think I do.
>>
>>> You do:
>>> "Most lazy drivers are just lazy, not suicidal."
>>
>> That's not faith in them. They are still lazy asshats. By not catering
>> to them they are much less likely to give me problems.

> Only if you believe that your behaviour will change their in the long run...
> ...IOW, you ARE trying to teach them a lesson, just as I thought.

There's no lesson to teach. I just don't cater to their laziness.
You're trying to phrase this in a way that sounds bad. There's no
lesson being taught, I'm not going to drive wrongly because they are.
Two wrongs do not make a right. If that's the way you can think, only
in standard phrases, that's the one that fits here.

> I don't CARE about the long run when I'm approaching an on ramp and I
> see a potential conflict with someone about to merge onto the highway.
> My concern at that moment is for what is the safest place for me to be.

And **** the other drivers on the road. Make the guy in the lane you're
moving into avoid you. Make him move over a lane... which makes the
next guy move over... until there's no further moving over. Until the
brake wave begins.

> By looking well ahead and anticipating potential conflicts, I put
> myself where it is safest to be. If that happens to be the left lane
> when there is no one whom I need to pass, so be it.

I'll move over when the lane is perfectly clear but not when it's going
to result in me pinned behind slower traffic or imposes on another
driver.


>>>>> ...while not also applying the same faith to me in my lane change,
>>>>> which is by its nature taking place between vehicles moving at a very
>>>>> similar speed; something which too often cannot be said about the
>>>>> person merging into highway traffic.
>>>>
>>>> I didn't put any faith or lack there of in your lane change. However
>>>> I also have to watch the ramps if I am in the 2nd lane from the right
>>>> because drivers who make way for mergers usually demand others make way
>>>> for their merges and lane changes too. Speed usually doesn't matter and
>>>> these idiots usually are braking as they move over to let the merger in.
>>
>>> Then they've moved over far too late.
>>
>> I still have to avoid them... and they haven't bothered to use mirrors
>> or signal just like those they are making way for.
>
> What others MIGHT be doing has nothing to do with what I AM doing.

It's how what you advocate is practiced in the real world by most who
practice it IME.


>>>> My view is that fundamentally the north american driver is a lazy ****
>>>> who doesn't want to put any effort into driving. If I show them I will
>>>> cater to their laziness, they will take full advantage of it, putting
>>>> my safety at risk. Thus I do not.Ever see a left turn conga line? When
>>>> does it stop? With a left turner who isn't an asshole or someone going
>>>> straight from the other side has the balls to just go. These lazy
>>>> jackasses take as much as they think they can get. Until someone doesn't
>>>> cater to them.
>>>
>>> Yup. I get it. You want to teach people a lesson.
>>> I want to get through traffic as safely as possible.
>>
>> No I want to get where I am going safely and efficiently. People like
>> that are incapable of learning a lesson and not worth my time to teach
>> them one. I just go and they stop like they are supposed to. They
>> know what they are supposed to do, they just won't do it if they don't
>> have to. They want to push the work and delays on to others. All
>> you are doing is breeding more of these lazy drivers by catering to
>> them. You are building their sense of entitlement. You're
>> enabling them. It just keeps getting worse.
>
> So let me see if I understand you:

> You claim that by me taking preemptive action for the sole reason of
> improving my safety margin, I am "enabling them" and teaching them that
> they can be lazy...

> ...but when CHOOSE to force them to not be "lazy" by putting yourself
> at risk...
>
> ...your motivation ISN'T to teach them something.
>
> So what IS your motive for putting yourself at greater risk than the
> absolute minimum, Brent? I'd really like to know.

I am not putting myself at greater risk. It's less risk to hold course
and speed IME. Most of these drivers do not want to remain in the
rightmost lane. They see I've moved over once for them, so they count
on me doing it again. If I hold my place, pretty much every time,
there's no action for me to take worse than changing lanes after they
have merged and passing them. Usually they'll merge behind me if I
don't make a tell.

If I take pre-emptive action as you call it they will then just go
another lane over forcing evasive action to be taken. By that time it's
really damn close, but since I've shown that I see them and will yield
to them, they know they can do it. If I hold my place, and they merge
in front of me they'll often continue their slide left leaving the path
clear for me. Further more usually taking this preemptive action means
I have to force another driver to avoid me or get myself pinned behind
slower traffic. Neither of which I consider viable options.

On 2013-12-20, Brent > wrote:
> On 2013-12-20, Alan Baker > wrote:

I found my example video of this....

I've taken pre-emptive action and moved over for the mergers. Now look
what Mario does: https://www.youtube.com/v/RRQOC1-JSXM

Harry K wrote "- show quoted text -
Try reading for comprehension. One lane left AND KEEP UP WITH TRAFFIC. Where do I mention ANYTHING about passing on the right?. "

You didn't.


But: Your's, and the o.p.'s proposal, by keeping that right-most lane clear of through-traffic, will definitely ENCOURAGE and CREATE THE OPPTY for ILLEGAL passing on the right.

Learn something about human nature for once...

> wrote in message
...
> Harry K wrote "- show quoted text -
> Try reading for comprehension. One lane left AND KEEP UP WITH
> TRAFFIC. Where do I mention ANYTHING about passing on the right?. "
>
> You didn't.
>
>
> But: Your's, and the o.p.'s proposal, by keeping that right-most
> lane clear of through-traffic, will definitely ENCOURAGE and CREATE
> THE OPPTY for ILLEGAL passing on the right.
>
> Learn something about human nature for once...

Brain-damaged Chrissie-boy doesn't even know anything about his own
Stupidity, let alone the nature of any other humans.

K-baby, nobody else thinks in the same brain-dead manner that you do.
Just because you hallucinate some worthless crap, it doesn't mean that
your hallucination has any meaning or value to normal people. Morons
like you should stay the **** off the roads.

On 2013-12-17 02:23:57 +0000, Sancho Panza said:

>>>>> You're not going to get killed by it. IME, impaired mergers will not
>>>>> ram your vehicle when trying to merge. They usually either fall in
>>>>> behind you or actually accelerate and merge properly if you remain in
>>>>> the right hand lane.
>>>>
>>>> Tell that to the thru traffic that SPEEDS UP to time it so they will
>>>> collide with the merger--forcing the merger to speed up themselves or
>>>> slow down and brake. If they were going faster than merging traffic,
>>>> they could have changed one lane to the left (two or more lanes in the
>>>> same direction).
>>>>
>>>> NO, I don't think forcing the merger to stop on the onramp is safe
>>>> driving on the thru traffic driver's part.
>>>
>>> Then you must have quite a time with the interval signals on the
>>> access ramps.
>>
>> Are they at the TOP of the ramp....?
>
> That lack of knowledge explains your comment.

The fact that I made my point in the form of a question doesn't
indicate a lack of knowledge.

On 2013-12-19 07:13:19 +0000, Arif Khokar said:

> On 12/19/2013 12:27 AM, Harry K wrote:
>> On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 6:20:20 PM UTC-8, Brent wrote:
>
>>> No I want to get where I am going safely and efficiently. People like
>>> that are incapable of learning a lesson and not worth my time to teach
>>> them one. I just go and they stop like they are supposed to. They
>>> know what they are supposed to do, they just won't do it if they don't
>>> have to. They want to push the work and delays on to others. All
>>> you are doing is breeding more of these lazy drivers by catering to
>>> them. You are building their sense of entitlement. You're
>>> enabling them. It just keeps getting worse.
>
>> Don't you ever get tired of making ridiculous assumptions?
>
> Brent is correct. I don't bother switching lanes most of the time and
> find that the person merging will make an adjustment to avoid a
> collision.

So you choose to leave your safety in the hands of someone else who
MUST be making a speed adjustment.

>
> Keep in mind that there are going to be times where you cannot switch
> lanes due to passing traffic. If you maintain a constant speed, pretty
> much any driver can figure it out and get behind you. Other than that,
> they end up stopping in the merging lane.

"Pretty much any driver" will also not suddenly change lanes when
you're right beside them...

....but that doesn't make being right beside another car in another lane
something you don't need to avoid when possible.

On 12/20/2013 2:12 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2013-12-17 02:23:57 +0000, Sancho Panza said:
>
>>>>>> You're not going to get killed by it. IME, impaired mergers will not
>>>>>> ram your vehicle when trying to merge. They usually either fall in
>>>>>> behind you or actually accelerate and merge properly if you remain in
>>>>>> the right hand lane.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tell that to the thru traffic that SPEEDS UP to time it so they will
>>>>> collide with the merger--forcing the merger to speed up themselves or
>>>>> slow down and brake. If they were going faster than merging traffic,
>>>>> they could have changed one lane to the left (two or more lanes in the
>>>>> same direction).
>>>>>
>>>>> NO, I don't think forcing the merger to stop on the onramp is safe
>>>>> driving on the thru traffic driver's part.
>>>>
>>>> Then you must have quite a time with the interval signals on the
>>>> access ramps.
>>>
>>> Are they at the TOP of the ramp....?
>>
>> That lack of knowledge explains your comment.
>
> The fact that I made my point in the form of a question doesn't indicate
> a lack of knowledge.

The disingenuousness is not appreciated.



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com