On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 21:48:06 -0600, (Brent
P) wrote:

>In article >, Dave Head wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 11:28:52 -0600, (Brent
>> P) wrote:
>>
>>>In article >, Dave Head wrote:
>
>>>> Hell, nobody's dealing with the fact that a car at the 90th percentile is going
>>>> to make 1800 lane changes over a long trip that causes him to encounter 2000
>>>> other cars, as opposed to the fact that he'd only make 200 lane changes by
>>>> simply staying left, either.
>
>>>You're ducking the point. But your 30th percentile driver will get left
>>>and stay left too driving the way you do.
>
>> I can't help that. I wouldn't do it.
>
>At least 1000s of other drivers would. And your teachings would only
>increase their number.
>
>> But if he does, I don't have the least
>> qualm about passing his ass on the right, without hesitation.
>
>How are you going to pass him on the right when there is either another
>30th percentile driver there or solid stream of passing traffic?
>
>>>Then he finds another 30th
>>>precentile driver in the right lane and a clump is caused.
>
>> Only if he slows down to match the other's speed. If he doesn't, he'll go
>> right on by... unless...
>
>What do you mean slows? they are both 30th percentile drivers.

Think about it. If they are going the same speed, nobody's gonna catch anyone
so they can be beside them. The only way they could be beside each other is if
one entered the road at the exact same speed as the other, and did right beside
the other.

IOW, if 1 is 100 yards behind the other, and they're going the exact same
speed, they will be 100 yards apart when they get to the opposite coast 2500
miles later. That's how "exact same speed" works.

Otherwise, one has to be going faster than the other for anyone to catch
anyone, and if they do, then CONTINUE at that speed and just go right on by.


>> the driver in the right lane speeds up! I accumulate some fininte number of
>> ducklings in _that_ manner, too. Those I scrape off at the next slower car in
>> the right lane, tho.
>
>Why should he 'speed up'? Just to be kind to you? You really drive in
>some sort of fantasy world of your own creation.

You'll have to ask one of them why they speed up. I don't know why. I just
know that they do.

>>>> A lane change, or _any_ other overt act, carries a possibility of going wrong
>>>> and resulting in an accident. Avoiding accidents is a matter of reducing risk
>>>> wherever possilble. NOT hopping back and forth, back and forth is one of the
>>>> ways...
>
>>>Being on the road does that. Passing does that. To meet your
>>>requirements, everyone must drive the same speed,
>
>> Noooo.... not what I'm advocating at all, no matter how you want to twist it to
>> suit your argument.
>
>That is _exactly_ what automated roads do. That's why I figure you like
>the idea of automated roads, because the automation enforces the
>behaviors you argue for.

I would like automated roads because:

I can quit driving and read the paper, or sleep, or almost anything that's more
interesting that steering a car mile after mile, which is almost anything else
you'd care to name. Driving is boring. The challenge with driving is mostly
to remain alert.

I can't be ticketed for any sort of "driving error" - the computer's in
control.

The car can be made to go faster - the only reason that they can't right now is
that the human being is not capable of reliably operating the car safely at
that high of a speed - or at least that's the government line, in spite of the
German experience with the Autobahn. There would be no excuse not to operate
an automated highway at 100 mph.

>>>which I am sure you
>>>want to pick, and be spread across all lanes. The only way to maintain
>>>road capacity or reduce it as little as possible is cram everyone
>>>together tightly.
>
>> I'm against that, unless all vehicles are under automatic control, as in a
>> train, or computerized individual vehicles. Those vehicles are not currently
>> viable.
>
>Automated control or not, it's the same result. Clumps. CLUMPS. To follow
>your ideas generates clumps.

The only things really objectionable about clumps is that they tend to slow
traffic and that they put cars in close proximity so more will be involved in
an accident if it occurs.

Automated highways would allow neither slow clumps nor would they have "things
going wrong" for the reason of human failure. System failure, sure, but that
should be extremely rare.

On an automated highway, you could probably expect to be following the car
ahead at a distance of inches or a few feet, and have cars on either side
maintaining inches of clearance, and probably at 100 mph. Do I think its
feasible in our lifetimes? Nope, but that would still be the automated highway
ideal situation.

>>>Which will happen anyway when everyone is limited to
>>>the same speed naturally. You hate clumps but argue for the kind of
>>>driving that creates clumps.
>
>> Nope. You're not understanding - catch someone, pass 'em. If you were fast
>> enough to catch 'em, you should be fast enough to pass 'em. Don't slow down.
>
>Guess you've never heard of on-ramps.
>
>>>May you only encounter drivers like yourself, but slower. This means
>>>you'll always be in clumps regardless of which lane you choose.
>
>> Doesn't work that way. I drive so there is always room to pass - I don't
>> _ever_ drive beside someone else unless there's absolultely no choice - IOW, my
>> way ahead is blocked. Otherwise, everyone has the opportunity to go around on
>> the right, which is what I would do to someone driving in that manner that I
>> caught.
>
>Again, where-you-drive isn't everywhere. I am glad traffic densities
>where you drive are somewhere below that of 3am on a weekday in NE IL,
>but your methods don't scale. Those who follow your driving methods here
>cause all sorts of clumps all the time. I went through about a dozen
>tonight where some LLB was doing your 'keeping left except to pass' and
>caused a clump. There isn't room to go around your dumb asses on the
>right all the time.

There is when I do it.

>Just the traffic volume alone allows one LLB to cause
>a clump just by slowing the _RATE_ that other traffic can pass him.

Well, you got a problem with traffic volume, then. You're problem child pulls
over, it'll just be the next guy a car or 2 up that's the new problem.