How Much Road Capacity is Wasted Due to Poor Driving?

The Real Bev wrote:
> "Scott en Aztlán" wrote:
>
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Scott en Aztlán" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dunno why they do it, but lots of people pull onto a freeway onramp,
>>>>remain in the acceleration/deceleration lane, and get right back off
>>>>again at the next exit.
>>>
>>>It's not complicated. Doing that is sometimes faster than staying on nearby
>>>surface streets. It's not like we're using up the freeway or anything.
>>
>>Now there's a switch - surface streets more congested than a parallel
>>freeway?
>
>
> Getting on the freeway may mean bypassing several stoplights, all of which are
> guaranteed to be red in my direction, or 4-way stops.
>
>
>>Does your tactic ever backfire, e.g. you get stuck behind someone who
>>is stopped dead in the acceleration lane waiting for a gap to appear
>>in the stop-and-go traffic to his left?
>
>
> NEVER! Well, I guess it might have happened, but I can't remember it.
>

I can think of at least one instance near my house where doing what you
say (entering and immediately exiting the freeway) saves one a
considerable amount of time. however that isn't exactly what you're
describing as you actually do have to merge into the right lane for
maybe 3 car lengths.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
news
>
> That's an easy one: the drivers in the left lane are afraid that some
> frustrated blockee from the middle lane will suddenly whip out in
> front of them in a lame attempt to escape the clot.
>

In that situation, I will try to get resonably close to the
car ahead of me, so I don't have a nice inviting space
beckoning to the people stuck in the lane behind the
sloth.

I fear the unexpected leap out into the faster moving lane
in that situation, I have had it happen, and it is amazing to me
that people will pull right out in front of a car going twenty MPH
faster than they are, and then slowly speed up, not concerning
themselves with the oncoming vehicle at all. Probably not even
looking in the mirror once they change lanes.

Bernard

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 12:35:10 -0700, "Bernard Farquart"
> wrote:

>
>"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
>news
>>
>> That's an easy one: the drivers in the left lane are afraid that some
>> frustrated blockee from the middle lane will suddenly whip out in
>> front of them in a lame attempt to escape the clot.
>>
>
>In that situation, I will try to get resonably close to the
>car ahead of me, so I don't have a nice inviting space
>beckoning to the people stuck in the lane behind the
>sloth.

That's fine once you're there, but getting there can still be scary
for some people. Until you've closed that gap, some desperate (and
judgement-impaired, thanks to Sloth-induced road rage) driver might
pop out from the Sloth Conga Line at any moment. The key, of course,
is to be advancing at a sufficient rate of speed so that they won't
even be tempted to try it. Some drivers are too timid to pull it off.

>I fear the unexpected leap out into the faster moving lane
>in that situation, I have had it happen, and it is amazing to me
>that people will pull right out in front of a car going twenty MPH
>faster than they are, and then slowly speed up, not concerning
>themselves with the oncoming vehicle at all. Probably not even
>looking in the mirror once they change lanes.

Some people behave as if the cars they see aren't moving, or aren't
moving as fast as they are. These are the people who, for example,
pull right out in front of a bus, thinking "buses are slow, lumbering
vehicles, so I have plenty of time to pull out." These people then say
**** like "that bus came outta nowhere!" when they get T-boned. The
ones stuck behind a Sloth take a quick peek in the mirror, see that
the space immediately next to them is clear, and decide it's OK to
pull out - as if all the cars in the lane next to them are going at
the same Sloth speed that their current lane is. These idiots never
stop to think that, if the lane they want to merge into isn't going
any faster, then why do they want to merge into it?

In article >,
"Bernard Farquart" > says:

>I fear the unexpected leap out into the faster moving lane
>in that situation, I have had it happen, and it is amazing to me
>that people will pull right out in front of a car going twenty MPH
>faster than they are, and then slowly speed up, not concerning
>themselves with the oncoming vehicle at all. Probably not even
>looking in the mirror once they change lanes.

Here in CA, if you dare blink them or blow your horn at them
they give you the finger as you swerve around them, thinking
you should have "let them in".

If I get terminal cancer and just don't give a sh!t anymore I'm
going to buy some big ol' 70s-era industrial-strength vehicle
and just keep on coming. Let these idiots bounce off my bumper;
maybe they'll swallow their cellphone in the process.

-Kenny

--
Kenneth R. Crudup Sr. SW Engineer, Scott County Consulting, Los Angeles
H: 3630 S. Sepulveda Blvd. #138, L.A., CA 90034-6809 (310) 391-1898

Bernard Farquart wrote:
> I fear the unexpected leap out into the faster moving lane
> in that situation, I have had it happen, and it is amazing to me
> that people will pull right out in front of a car going twenty MPH
> faster than they are, and then slowly speed up, not concerning
> themselves with the oncoming vehicle at all. Probably not even
> looking in the mirror once they change lanes.

Unfortunately, CA law seems to protect them in that situation. If you
hit someone else anywhere behind the headlights, it's a "rear ender".
From this and other bad-guys'-"rights" laws we get the "LA lane change"
and deliberate red-light-running by pedestrians, among other charming
features of this idiotic state.

Where's the Terminator with his big-ass gun when we need him?

"John David Galt" > wrote in message
...
> Bernard Farquart wrote:
>> I fear the unexpected leap out into the faster moving lane
>> in that situation, I have had it happen, and it is amazing to me
>> that people will pull right out in front of a car going twenty MPH
>> faster than they are, and then slowly speed up, not concerning
>> themselves with the oncoming vehicle at all. Probably not even
>> looking in the mirror once they change lanes.
>
> Unfortunately, CA law seems to protect them in that situation. If you
> hit someone else anywhere behind the headlights, it's a "rear ender".
> From this and other bad-guys'-"rights" laws we get the "LA lane change"
> and deliberate red-light-running by pedestrians, among other charming
> features of this idiotic state.
>
Rear enders are the fault of the rear vehicle here in WA as well,
it isn't just you.

"Bernard Farquart" > wrote

> Rear enders are the fault of the rear vehicle here in WA as well,
> it isn't just you.

You should add "generally" to the above statement, as there
are circumstances that could make it the fault of the person
in front.

Floyd (also in WA)

>>> I fear the unexpected leap out into the faster moving lane
>>> in that situation, I have had it happen, and it is amazing to me
>>> that people will pull right out in front of a car going twenty MPH
>>> faster than they are, and then slowly speed up, not concerning
>>> themselves with the oncoming vehicle at all. Probably not even
>>> looking in the mirror once they change lanes.

>> Unfortunately, CA law seems to protect them in that situation. If you
>> hit someone else anywhere behind the headlights, it's a "rear ender".
>> From this and other bad-guys'-"rights" laws we get the "LA lane change"
>> and deliberate red-light-running by pedestrians, among other charming
>> features of this idiotic state.

> Rear enders are the fault of the rear vehicle here in WA as well,
> it isn't just you.

I have no problem with that law as applied to real rear-enders
(except when caused deliberately by the front vehicle), but that
principle isn't acceptable when the other guy just cut in front
of you. That should count as right-of-way violation, not a rear
ender.

But I suspect that all blue states have laws like CA's on this.

"fbloogyudsr" > wrote in message
...
> "Bernard Farquart" > wrote
>> Rear enders are the fault of the rear vehicle here in WA as well,
>> it isn't just you.
>
> You should add "generally" to the above statement, as there
> are circumstances that could make it the fault of the person
> in front.
>
> Floyd (also in WA)

Well, perhaps intentionally causing someone to hit your
rear, but that is pretty hard to prove, I think.

Bernard

"Bernard Farquart" > wrote
> "fbloogyudsr" > wrote
>> "Bernard Farquart" > wrote
>>> Rear enders are the fault of the rear vehicle here in WA as well,
>>> it isn't just you.
>>
>> You should add "generally" to the above statement, as there
>> are circumstances that could make it the fault of the person
>> in front.
>>
>> Floyd (also in WA)
>
> Well, perhaps intentionally causing someone to hit your
> rear, but that is pretty hard to prove, I think.

How about Friday, when a Metro bus almost rear-ended me when I
had to stop while turning right because a ped was about to step
into the crosswalk? Bus driver actually had the chutzpah to honk!

Floyd