Clump

Dave Head > wrote in
:

> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 23:13:58 -0500, Nate Nagel >
> wrote:
>
>>Dave Head wrote:
>>
>>> and those of the others as I move back into the right lane, or stay
>>> left, and let 200 other cars (that probably shouldn't be going that
>>> fast anyway),which I
>>
>>that ain't your call to make, unless you're a cop.
>
> Just glossed right over the numbers that have an extra 1800 lane
> changes being performed on a 2000 mile trip for no good reason other
> than to satisfy an archaic notion and/or religious treatment of the
> subject.



Archaic only in your mind.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:
> (Brent P) wrote in

>> I see it regularly on chicago area interstates. Stupid, yes. but stupid
>> is common too.

> If your left tire goes flat,one pulls off onto the median to change it,to
> keep on the far side of traffic.
> Unless you like being struck by a zombie driver.

I should have given more information. Chicago interstates often have
narrow left shoulders with a jersey barrier or guard rail. Common safe
practice is to use the right shoulder and put a good hunk of the car on
the grass or as far over to the right as possible to fix a left side
flat.

On the left shoulder one will actually be in the traffic lane to fix a
right side flat, or the the car will be to fix a left side. Yes. I've
seen this. damn scary to have someone standing inches away but without a
gap to change lanes. I slow, move to the right edge of the lane, try to
line up with whatever minimal gap I can find and pray the person doesn't
step into the lane.

In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:
> (Brent P) wrote in

>> I see it regularly on chicago area interstates. Stupid, yes. but stupid
>> is common too.

> If your left tire goes flat,one pulls off onto the median to change it,to
> keep on the far side of traffic.
> Unless you like being struck by a zombie driver.

I should have given more information. Chicago interstates often have
narrow left shoulders with a jersey barrier or guard rail. Common safe
practice is to use the right shoulder and put a good hunk of the car on
the grass or as far over to the right as possible to fix a left side
flat.

On the left shoulder one will actually be in the traffic lane to fix a
right side flat, or the the car will be to fix a left side. Yes. I've
seen this. damn scary to have someone standing inches away but without a
gap to change lanes. I slow, move to the right edge of the lane, try to
line up with whatever minimal gap I can find and pray the person doesn't
step into the lane.

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 16:53:39 -0600, (Brent
P) wrote:

>In article >, Dave Head wrote:
>
>> The best way to keep things from getting dangerous is to avoid doing things
>> that increase risk. Changing lanes increases risk.
>
>So why are you complaining about clumps then? Clumps are what happens
>when people don't change lanes. Clumps are the result of exactly what you
>are preaching.

Clumps happen when people drive the same speed.

Catch somebody? PASS 'EM!

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 16:53:39 -0600, (Brent
P) wrote:

>In article >, Dave Head wrote:
>
>> The best way to keep things from getting dangerous is to avoid doing things
>> that increase risk. Changing lanes increases risk.
>
>So why are you complaining about clumps then? Clumps are what happens
>when people don't change lanes. Clumps are the result of exactly what you
>are preaching.

Clumps happen when people drive the same speed.

Catch somebody? PASS 'EM!

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 16:52:09 -0600, (Brent
P) wrote:

>In article >, Dave Head wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:31:48 -0600, (Brent
>> P) wrote:
>>
>>>In article >, Dave Head wrote:
>
>>>> forth just to satisfy some archaic notion, based on a law that was repealed
>>>> about 35 years ago.
>>>
>>>Repealed? It's the law in most states.
>
>> And totally unenforced, like some of the laws on the books that require someone
>> walking in front of an autombile within the city limits while ringing a bell
>> announcing the approach.
>
>unenforced != repealed.
>
>>>IL made it's KRETP law tighter as of last year.
>
>> Tighter? As in bigger fines, I imagine.
>
>Better language. It's no longer 'slower traffic keep right' it's keep
>right except to pass.
>
>> There's no arguing that the laws are
>> being more and more engineered simply as a revenue source. Yet, you likely
>> _still_ won't get stopped for it, especially if there's no one in the right
>> lane.
>
>The ISP has written about 40 tickets on it. Not exactly revenue
>generation. Having heard and exchanged email with the legislator who
>sponsored the change, I find him to be interested in _real_ road safety.
>
>I see you didn't bother dealing with the rest of the post. Constant speed
>+ no lane changes = clumps.

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.

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...

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 16:52:09 -0600, (Brent
P) wrote:

>In article >, Dave Head wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:31:48 -0600, (Brent
>> P) wrote:
>>
>>>In article >, Dave Head wrote:
>
>>>> forth just to satisfy some archaic notion, based on a law that was repealed
>>>> about 35 years ago.
>>>
>>>Repealed? It's the law in most states.
>
>> And totally unenforced, like some of the laws on the books that require someone
>> walking in front of an autombile within the city limits while ringing a bell
>> announcing the approach.
>
>unenforced != repealed.
>
>>>IL made it's KRETP law tighter as of last year.
>
>> Tighter? As in bigger fines, I imagine.
>
>Better language. It's no longer 'slower traffic keep right' it's keep
>right except to pass.
>
>> There's no arguing that the laws are
>> being more and more engineered simply as a revenue source. Yet, you likely
>> _still_ won't get stopped for it, especially if there's no one in the right
>> lane.
>
>The ISP has written about 40 tickets on it. Not exactly revenue
>generation. Having heard and exchanged email with the legislator who
>sponsored the change, I find him to be interested in _real_ road safety.
>
>I see you didn't bother dealing with the rest of the post. Constant speed
>+ no lane changes = clumps.

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.

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...

On 15 Jan 2005 03:33:18 GMT, Jim Yanik .> wrote:

>Dave Head > wrote in
:
>
>> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 23:13:58 -0500, Nate Nagel >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Dave Head wrote:
>>>
>>>> and those of the others as I move back into the right lane, or stay
>>>> left, and let 200 other cars (that probably shouldn't be going that
>>>> fast anyway),which I
>>>
>>>that ain't your call to make, unless you're a cop.
>>
>> Just glossed right over the numbers that have an extra 1800 lane
>> changes being performed on a 2000 mile trip for no good reason other
>> than to satisfy an archaic notion and/or religious treatment of the
>> subject.
>
>
>
>Archaic only in your mind.

Still sidestepped the numbers

On 15 Jan 2005 03:33:18 GMT, Jim Yanik .> wrote:

>Dave Head > wrote in
:
>
>> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 23:13:58 -0500, Nate Nagel >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Dave Head wrote:
>>>
>>>> and those of the others as I move back into the right lane, or stay
>>>> left, and let 200 other cars (that probably shouldn't be going that
>>>> fast anyway),which I
>>>
>>>that ain't your call to make, unless you're a cop.
>>
>> Just glossed right over the numbers that have an extra 1800 lane
>> changes being performed on a 2000 mile trip for no good reason other
>> than to satisfy an archaic notion and/or religious treatment of the
>> subject.
>
>
>
>Archaic only in your mind.

Still sidestepped the numbers

In article >, Dave Head wrote:
> Clumps happen when people drive the same speed.

Which is what you are proposing. Everyone drive the same speed.

> Catch somebody? PASS 'EM!

Passing, lane changes, KRETP, etc you are arguing against.

You hate clumps but argue for the things that cause clumps.