View Single Post
  #11  
Old December 30th 04, 01:59 AM
Jim Yanik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Anthony Giorgianni" >
wrote in
:

>
> "Jim Yanik" .> wrote in message
> .. .
>
>> I'm not "controlling" anyone.Just not altering my path to facilitate
>> their bad behavior.Maybe they learn from it,probably not.

>
>>

> After thinking about this, I've decided to come back to this thread
> and do something that, as far as I know, has never been done by anyone
> before on rec.autos.driving: Agree that perhaps you're all changing my
> mind!
>
> I'm thinking this through... let me see: If it's okay for YOU not to
> facilitate what you view as bad behavior on the road, we ALL must have
> the same right, correct? I mean if another motorist does something
> that I feel is unsafe or wrong, it should be okay for me not to enable
> this behavior. In fact, if I understand you correctly, I could go so
> far as to say that I have an OBLIGATION not to accommodate the
> motorist for the sake of me and all other drivers. So I'm just
> thinking here.....
>
> Normally, if one of the 85th percentilers comes up behind me, I pull
> to the right to let them by.


Well,first you are not following the KRETP or "slower traffic keep
right"rule.
You should already be over to the right.

> But based on what you've told me, I.'m
> now realizing that I have only been enabling what I think is
> dangerous, anti-social and certainly illegal behavior. So whether or
> not you happen to agree with my view on the 85th percentile, I think
> you will all applaud my newly-found realization that it's my
> obligation NOT to accommodate or tolerate that driver, especially if
> it means pulling into a slower moving right lane. Furthermore, why
> should I inconvenience myself, add to my trip time by accommodating
> someone who feels it's okay to break the law when I don't? If I'm
> going the speed limit, altering my path to facilitate their bad
> behavior is only rewarding them. If, on the other hand, I stay in the
> left lane and perhaps even slow down, I'll be sending a message to the
> scofflaw that his behavior is unacceptable. Having my two-ton slab of
> an SUV slowing down in front of him, maybe even coming to a complete
> stop, may teach him to think twice the next time!!! Hmmmm... I think I
> might even be able to argue here that it would be especially
> appropriate not to enable a speeder because he's violating the law,
> while a slow merger is not. You know what? I think this vigilante
> driving instruction could be just the thing I've been looking for.
> HEY! Maybe you 85th percentilers could try this with the 95th
> percentilers; and you 95th percentilers could try it with the 00th
> percentilers!!!!!!!!! We might actually change some driving behavior
> in this country and get credit for fulfilling our civic obligations
> ALL AT THE SAME TIME!!! I might even
> make myself a badge for this.


Seems to me you lack common sense.You can't differentiate between dangerous
driving and driving that does not affect anyone.There's no evidence
speeding by itself causes and hazard to others on the highway,if they drive
in the accepted manner.However,merging into traffic at much lower speeds
(sloth merging)than the traffic IS known to be a hazard.
>
> Let me see if there is any flaw in my thinking: You certainly can't
> argue that this no-enable right or obligation is granted only to some
> motorists and not to others or only in connection with slow poking as
> opposed to other driving behaviors that we vigilante driving
> instructors deem as unacceptable, right? I mean is speeding somehow
> exempt from this rule, no matter how fast?


Well,how does driving at speed work on Germany's Autobahn?

>Are any other behaviors
> exempt - maybe carrying dogs in the back of pickup trucks or playing a
> tambourine while driving? No, that doesn't make sense.


YOU don't seem to be making any sense.

>It would seem
> only reasonable to expect that we're not all going to agree on what
> constitutes proper driving (some of you may approve of driving the
> 95th percentile or backwards or even upsidedown, for example.). So I
> would think that we'd all be justified imposing those lessons (or
> un-accommodations) that we think are appropriate from our particular
> point of view. WOW!! WOW!
>
> Thinking this through, I now realize that YOU GUYS ARE RIGHT!!!!! You
> have totally changed my thinking on this!!!!!! Slowing down (or at
> least not enabling) speeders is therefore not only something I can
> rightfully do, it is my OBLIGATION!!!!!!! You know what? I can't wait
> to run my first class. To be brutally honest, this already is giving
> me an erection!! Yee-ha! I bet this is even going to make me better in
> bed ... a nice side benefit!
>
> Thank you so much for helping me see that I have a right and
> obligation not to enable YOU if I don't agree with how you are
> driving. Excellent! Excellent! Excellent!
>
> Regards and thank you again from your newest vigilante driving
> instructor/un-accommodater.
>
> Anthony Giorgianni
>
>
>
>




--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
Ads