I'm not arguing whether speeding is bad or sloth merging is bad. I'm just
raising
the issue of whether we can take it upon ourselves to somehow interfere with
driving behavior we don't agree with, no matter what it is. I don't
understand how people can in one breath be opposed to those who block the
left lane in an effort to "not enable" speeders and at the same time same
say it's okay to take some action to "not enable" those who engage in some
other type of driving behavior.

I do not think people should speed. Some of my view has to do with safety.
It also has to do with what I see as our responsibilities in a society in
which we treasure more than anything else the rule of law and the freedom it
guarantees. But that being said, I certainly am not going to interfere with
a speeder. If you think it's okay to speed, it's my obligation as a safe
driver to get out of your way, even if I think doing so enables it enables
your behavior. I think you'd agree that to do anything else would be
inappropriate and even dangerous. But what you can't say is it's wrong to
interfere with speeders but okay to interfere with other types of driving
behavior, especially behavior that, unlike speeding, is not even illegal. To
suggest that you can have it both ways is shear hypocrisy. Can't you see
that? Once you create an atmosphere of highway vigilantism for one type of
behavior, you do it for all types of behavior - speeding included. I say
let's all agree drive defensively, non-aggressively and stop thinking about
imparting lessons - because you're only going to encourage the other guy to
give you a lesson of his own. And that makes the highways more dangerous.


--
Regards,
Anthony Giorgianni

The return address for this post is fictitious. Please reply by posting back
to the newsgroup.


<snip>