A Cars forum. AutoBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Driving
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Merge impaired slowpokes



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old December 29th 04, 05:54 PM
Jim Yanik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Anthony Giorgianni" >
wrote in
:

> Jim Yanik" .> wrote in message
> .. .
><snip>
>
>>
>> Nor should anyone allow a bad driver to cause them to brake or change

> lanes
>> due to their sloppy driving.
>>
>> After all,it's up to the bad driver to learn their own lessons.
>> IMO,they should not learn that they can do as they please at other's
>> expense.One should not reinforce negative behavior.(by tolerating it)
>>

>
>
> And I wrote:
>
> Dear Jim
>
> It's not up to us to discourage other drivers or be intolerant of
> their behavior. If you want to do that, enroll in the police academy.
> It's up to us to drive safely. Using a two-ton vehicle as a teaching
> tool or punishment device on a highway is irresponsible. It turns YOU
> into the bad driver.
>
> If you think another driver is doing something so dangerous that he
> needs intervention, pull over, get on a cell phone and call the
> police.


Useless, as police have to SEE the infraction themselves before writing a
ticket.

> Appointing yourself Rambo road guardian or becoming a
> self-imposed highway instructor is dangerous and immature.


Not making space for a sloth merger is not being "Rambo" or self-styled
highway instructor.It's passive,not active.


> It could
> cause an accident


So can sloth merging.

> and/or get everyone's tempers going. It doesn't
> teach anyone anything because no one recognizes the authority that you
> think you have to control the world,


I'm not "controlling" anyone.Just not altering my path to facilitate their
bad behavior.Maybe they learn from it,probably not.They didn't the first
time.

> especially not the driver you're
> going to **** off by trying to teach him a lesson. (Maybe he's the
> cop. Or maybe he'll have a bigger lesson he wants to teach you.)
>
> So now I'll be on my way now. No testosterone-induced driving debate
> for me. I'll got better things to do. Take my advice or leave it. It's
> up to you.
>
> And you know what? If we should meet on the road and I think you're
> going too fast, I won't even try to teach you a lesson by blocking
> you.


Equating "going too fast" with hazardous merging is quite a stretch.


> I'm going to be an enabler and let you go and go -- even if it
> means I have to move over to the side of the road to let you pass.
> I'll I just trundle along in the right lane,


Where you should be,anyways.KRETP.


> trying to avoid as many
> slow pokes and angry lesson teachers


There's a big difference between "lesson teachers" and passively allowing
one to learn from their mistakes.


> as I can because, from where I
> sit, you're both exactly the same... lousy drivers.
>
> Thanks for the response. I wish both of you and Alexander and everyone
> here the best of luck and many safe miles!




--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
Ads
  #32  
Old December 29th 04, 07:20 PM
Brent P
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:

> Useless, as police have to SEE the infraction themselves before writing a
> ticket.


That often doesn't stop them (ie collisions). But if it's just A calling in
on B they won't bother with it.

>> Appointing yourself Rambo road guardian or becoming a
>> self-imposed highway instructor is dangerous and immature.


> Not making space for a sloth merger is not being "Rambo" or self-styled
> highway instructor.It's passive,not active.


Exactly. But so many people have been conditioned by "consideration" the
mere act of not giving in to idiots or aggression is considered "road
rage" and wrong. I've often been considered wrong for simply not making
way for some idiot or self-absorbed arsehole. When I have given way the
results have often been more danagerous.

  #33  
Old December 29th 04, 07:20 PM
Brent P
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:

> Useless, as police have to SEE the infraction themselves before writing a
> ticket.


That often doesn't stop them (ie collisions). But if it's just A calling in
on B they won't bother with it.

>> Appointing yourself Rambo road guardian or becoming a
>> self-imposed highway instructor is dangerous and immature.


> Not making space for a sloth merger is not being "Rambo" or self-styled
> highway instructor.It's passive,not active.


Exactly. But so many people have been conditioned by "consideration" the
mere act of not giving in to idiots or aggression is considered "road
rage" and wrong. I've often been considered wrong for simply not making
way for some idiot or self-absorbed arsehole. When I have given way the
results have often been more danagerous.

  #34  
Old December 29th 04, 09:53 PM
Anthony Giorgianni
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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. 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.

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? 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. 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




  #35  
Old December 29th 04, 09:53 PM
Anthony Giorgianni
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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. 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.

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? 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. 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




  #36  
Old December 29th 04, 10:50 PM
Brent P
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, Anthony Giorgianni wrote:

> 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.....


Only if you believe in the typical personal-made-up version of the
vehicle code that is generally practiced in the USA. However, there are
well defined rules of right of way.

It is clear you are yet another one of the kind of driver who still
thinks it's 1932 and everybody lives in a place that looks like rural
kansas. A time where "consideration" and other forms of the whole of
traffic slowing and making way for a particular moron or aggressive
driver just because didn't matter.

The problem is, it's not 1932 anymore and few of us live in areas that
look anything like rural kansas. Vehicle density on the roads is very
high. That means everyone needs to drive for the system of roads, not for
their own selfish desires or the selfish desires of others. Everytime
someone slows to let in a sloth merger, or holds up traffic so someone
can switch from the left turn only lane to the right turn only lane, or
anything else of that nature the ripple goes through traffic and may
persist for HOURS.

The first thing that is apparent driving in Germany is the shift from
Me-first-****-you to driving for the system. When the light turns green
everybody starts moving at about the same time. No sloth, people get
through the intersections. Nobody lollygags merging on to the autobahn,
they use their right foot. Sure there are traffic jams there, I was even
in a few, even those are much more pleasant than here in the USA. The
point is that density of traffic, small roads, not enough space has
driven these behaviors.

Up until recent decades the USA has had lots of space to put cars. It's
now getting to be critical mass in most areas because we simply cannot
keep building more roads (speed of construction and cost in tax dollars)
to compensate for sloth and MFFY any longer. We have to deal with the
roads we have. We have to get the most out of what we have.

The first step to making driving in the USA much more pleasant and much
more efficent is to stop the social tolerance of idiotic sloth
driving. Stop teaching "consideration" of everybody on the interstate
slowing for a sloth merger diving for the left lane where he'll LLB and
teach real consideration of accelerating to speed, merging into a gap,
and staying right except to pass.


  #37  
Old December 29th 04, 10:50 PM
Brent P
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, Anthony Giorgianni wrote:

> 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.....


Only if you believe in the typical personal-made-up version of the
vehicle code that is generally practiced in the USA. However, there are
well defined rules of right of way.

It is clear you are yet another one of the kind of driver who still
thinks it's 1932 and everybody lives in a place that looks like rural
kansas. A time where "consideration" and other forms of the whole of
traffic slowing and making way for a particular moron or aggressive
driver just because didn't matter.

The problem is, it's not 1932 anymore and few of us live in areas that
look anything like rural kansas. Vehicle density on the roads is very
high. That means everyone needs to drive for the system of roads, not for
their own selfish desires or the selfish desires of others. Everytime
someone slows to let in a sloth merger, or holds up traffic so someone
can switch from the left turn only lane to the right turn only lane, or
anything else of that nature the ripple goes through traffic and may
persist for HOURS.

The first thing that is apparent driving in Germany is the shift from
Me-first-****-you to driving for the system. When the light turns green
everybody starts moving at about the same time. No sloth, people get
through the intersections. Nobody lollygags merging on to the autobahn,
they use their right foot. Sure there are traffic jams there, I was even
in a few, even those are much more pleasant than here in the USA. The
point is that density of traffic, small roads, not enough space has
driven these behaviors.

Up until recent decades the USA has had lots of space to put cars. It's
now getting to be critical mass in most areas because we simply cannot
keep building more roads (speed of construction and cost in tax dollars)
to compensate for sloth and MFFY any longer. We have to deal with the
roads we have. We have to get the most out of what we have.

The first step to making driving in the USA much more pleasant and much
more efficent is to stop the social tolerance of idiotic sloth
driving. Stop teaching "consideration" of everybody on the interstate
slowing for a sloth merger diving for the left lane where he'll LLB and
teach real consideration of accelerating to speed, merging into a gap,
and staying right except to pass.


  #38  
Old December 30th 04, 12:08 AM
Timothy J. Lee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article <uEFAd.302077$HA.87063@attbi_s01>,
Brent P > wrote:
>The first step to making driving in the USA much more pleasant and much
>more efficent is to stop the social tolerance of idiotic sloth
>driving.


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). Most people don't want to crash or greatly increase
the risk of crashing (although many, like the slow mergers themselves,
are too clueless to realize what actions increase the risk of crashing).
And crashing into the rear end of the slow merger will likely be deemed
your fault for legal and insurance purposes.

So while it may be desirable to discourage behavior like slow merging,
it is often not possible to do so without greatly increasing the risk
to yourself.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome.
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.
  #39  
Old December 30th 04, 12:08 AM
Timothy J. Lee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article <uEFAd.302077$HA.87063@attbi_s01>,
Brent P > wrote:
>The first step to making driving in the USA much more pleasant and much
>more efficent is to stop the social tolerance of idiotic sloth
>driving.


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). Most people don't want to crash or greatly increase
the risk of crashing (although many, like the slow mergers themselves,
are too clueless to realize what actions increase the risk of crashing).
And crashing into the rear end of the slow merger will likely be deemed
your fault for legal and insurance purposes.

So while it may be desirable to discourage behavior like slow merging,
it is often not possible to do so without greatly increasing the risk
to yourself.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome.
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.
  #40  
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
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.