If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
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> |
Ads |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
"Anthony Giorgianni" >
wrote > 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. You mis-understand: sloth mergers interfere *with the drivers already there*. No-one here is advocating blocking people from merging *safely* onto the freeway. > I do not think people should speed. Some of my view has to do with safety. Posted speed limits have little to do with safety. You only have to read all the existing traffic research papers (that have had links posted in this NG many times) to see that. Upon that point, your argument that speeders and sloth mergers are eqivalent falls apart. Floyd > 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> > > > |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
"Anthony Giorgianni" >
wrote > 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. You mis-understand: sloth mergers interfere *with the drivers already there*. No-one here is advocating blocking people from merging *safely* onto the freeway. > I do not think people should speed. Some of my view has to do with safety. Posted speed limits have little to do with safety. You only have to read all the existing traffic research papers (that have had links posted in this NG many times) to see that. Upon that point, your argument that speeders and sloth mergers are eqivalent falls apart. Floyd > 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> > > > |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
In article >, Anthony Giorgianni wrote:
> 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. It's a social issue. And like any other can be corrected with proper social pressures. How do you know not to fart in elevator? or not to shout in a movie theater? Or all sorts of other things? |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
In article >, Anthony Giorgianni wrote:
> 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. It's a social issue. And like any other can be corrected with proper social pressures. How do you know not to fart in elevator? or not to shout in a movie theater? Or all sorts of other things? |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
In article <nFIAd.658181$D%.491734@attbi_s51>,
Brent P > wrote: >In article >, Timothy J. Lee wrote: > >> The problem is that when a slow merger enters the freeway, those in >> the right lane often have a choice between either slowing down, >> changing lanes, or crashing (since the slow merger is already halfway >> in the right lane). > >They usually aren't half way in the lane. I've held course and speed many >times and never crashed. Sure there are times when one is forced to take >action but they are few and far and between. Then what do you do when a slow merger is entering at a speed to that s/he will reach the merge point (and be forced to enter the right lane) just at the point where you will be right behind him/her? Either you slow down, change lanes, or rear end the slow merger in that case. Or you can speed up to try to pass, but that can be problematical if you are behind someone else at your minimum safe following distance, or if the slow merger turns out to not be as slow as you thought. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Timothy J. Lee Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. No warranty of any kind is provided with this message. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
In article <nFIAd.658181$D%.491734@attbi_s51>,
Brent P > wrote: >In article >, Timothy J. Lee wrote: > >> The problem is that when a slow merger enters the freeway, those in >> the right lane often have a choice between either slowing down, >> changing lanes, or crashing (since the slow merger is already halfway >> in the right lane). > >They usually aren't half way in the lane. I've held course and speed many >times and never crashed. Sure there are times when one is forced to take >action but they are few and far and between. Then what do you do when a slow merger is entering at a speed to that s/he will reach the merge point (and be forced to enter the right lane) just at the point where you will be right behind him/her? Either you slow down, change lanes, or rear end the slow merger in that case. Or you can speed up to try to pass, but that can be problematical if you are behind someone else at your minimum safe following distance, or if the slow merger turns out to not be as slow as you thought. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Timothy J. Lee Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. No warranty of any kind is provided with this message. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
In article >, Timothy J. Lee wrote:
> In article <nFIAd.658181$D%.491734@attbi_s51>, > Brent P > wrote: >>In article >, Timothy J. Lee wrote: >> >>> The problem is that when a slow merger enters the freeway, those in >>> the right lane often have a choice between either slowing down, >>> changing lanes, or crashing (since the slow merger is already halfway >>> in the right lane). >> >>They usually aren't half way in the lane. I've held course and speed many >>times and never crashed. Sure there are times when one is forced to take >>action but they are few and far and between. > Then what do you do when a slow merger is entering at a speed to that > s/he will reach the merge point (and be forced to enter the right lane) > just at the point where you will be right behind him/her? That's the few and far between. I usually change lanes AND accelerate. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
In article >, Timothy J. Lee wrote:
> In article <nFIAd.658181$D%.491734@attbi_s51>, > Brent P > wrote: >>In article >, Timothy J. Lee wrote: >> >>> The problem is that when a slow merger enters the freeway, those in >>> the right lane often have a choice between either slowing down, >>> changing lanes, or crashing (since the slow merger is already halfway >>> in the right lane). >> >>They usually aren't half way in the lane. I've held course and speed many >>times and never crashed. Sure there are times when one is forced to take >>action but they are few and far and between. > Then what do you do when a slow merger is entering at a speed to that > s/he will reach the merge point (and be forced to enter the right lane) > just at the point where you will be right behind him/her? That's the few and far between. I usually change lanes AND accelerate. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Floyd
Whether posted speed limits have anything to do with safety has nothing to do with the issue. The question is whether it's okay for drivers to interfere with speeders if they don't agree with speeding and whether it's okay for drivers to interfere with others who do other things they don't like, such as slow lane merging. I say not okay. And I don't think you can say yes for one but no for the other, especially if you are saying no for speeding when speeding, unlike slow lane merging, is illegal, whether you agree with the speed laws or not. That's all. -- Regards, Anthony Giorgianni The return address for this post is fictitious. Please reply by posting back to the newsgroup. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|