Sloth Kills Another One

Scott en Aztl0xe1n <newsgroup> writes:

> There's no question this roach coach driver was a Sloth.


True, as far as it goes -- but was that relevant to this collision?

You said that the car was forced off the freeway. By the driver
of the roach coach? You didn't specify.

If so, that would be an example of *overly aggressive* driving, not
sloth[ful] driving. Sloth[fulness], while present, would probably
have been irrelevant, it seems to me.



Geoff

--
"I subscribed to _Archeology_ magazine for one year. I got sucked in
by their cover story, 'The Secret World of Lesbos.'" -- Alraune

Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On 23 Mar 2006 09:05:24 -0800, (Geoff Miller)
> wrote:
>
>
>>You said that the car was forced off the freeway. By the driver
>>of the roach coach? You didn't specify.
>
>
> That's because KTLA didn't.
>
> My guess is that the roach coach pulled some stupid ass Slothy
> maneuver, such as a SLoth Merge, the car driver swerved to avoid a
> collision, and wound up flying off the overpass.


So the car was passing on the right?

James Clark > asks:

> So the car was passing on the right?


What's wrong with passing on the right? (I gather that you
think it's noteworthy because you believe it's wrong. If not,
please feel free to set me straight.)

Passing only on the left only works in driving environments
where people have sufficient disclipline to keep right except
to pass (e.g., the German autobahnen). Otherwise everyone is
at the mercy of the ignorant, the incompetent, the distracted,
control freaks, and other left-lane blockers.

As far as I'm concerned, if people won't KRETP, then I'm duly
relieved of any obligation to pass only on the left. I'll get
around the *******s any way that I can, up to and including
passing on the shoulder or on the median.



Geoff

--
"It takes a special kind of retard to be offended so easily."
-- Adam Thrasher

Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 09:22:33 -0800, James Clark
> > wrote:
>
> >So the car was passing on the right?
>
> More likely the roach coach merged in from the left, forcing the car
> to the right (and right off the road),
-----
Most likely...?!

Why don't you just say- I don't have any facts... but I've reached a
conclusion anyway?
-----

- gpsman

Geoff Miller wrote:
> James Clark > asks:
>
>
>>So the car was passing on the right?
>
>
>
> What's wrong with passing on the right? (I gather that you
> think it's noteworthy because you believe it's wrong. If not,
> please feel free to set me straight.)
>
>


If the car swerved off the freeway when truck changed lanes, it's a safe bet that the truck was
changing into the rightmost lane. You are ****ing and moaning about slower traffic not using the
right lane and that is what the truck driver was doing.


It's like the chippie that ran off of I5 near Grapevine. He swerved off of the freeway when a truck
changed lanes. Since trucks are limited to the right 2 lanes, it raises a question:

Exactly how was the "Acura" driver evading when the chippie was hiding behind a truck?

James Clark > writes:

> If the car swerved off the freeway when truck changed lanes, it's
> a safe bet that the truck was changing into the rightmost lane.
> You are ****ing and moaning about slower traffic not using the
> right lane and that is what the truck driver was doing.

Excuse me? I wasn't ****ing and moaning. I was making a statement
of personal policy.

More to the point, using the right lane doesn't relieve one of the
obligation to make sure the way is clear before changing lanes.

It's fashionable to insist that if you're passing on the right and get
struck by another vehicle that's changing lanes to the right, it's
somehow _your_ fault. That's bull****. It's every driver's respon-
sibility to make sure it's safe to make a lane change before actually
changing lanes. That applies just as much to lane changes to your
right as well as to your left.


> It's like the chippie that ran off of I5 near Grapevine. He swerved
> off of the freeway when a truck changed lanes. Since trucks are
> limited to the right 2 lanes, it raises a question: Exactly how was
> the "Acura" driver evading when the chippie was hiding behind a truck?

I'm not familiar with the incident. I'm from NoCal.



Geoff

--
"Drunk yuppie dickhead
Yes that is your penis there
On the barroom floor" -- Neil Bradley

Geoff Miller wrote:

> It's fashionable to insist that if you're passing on the right and get
> struck by another vehicle that's changing lanes to the right, it's
> somehow _your_ fault. That's bull****. It's every driver's respon-
> sibility to make sure it's safe to make a lane change before actually
> changing lanes. That applies just as much to lane changes to your
> right as well as to your left.
>
>

If you're passing, you have a better view of the situation than the person being passed, especially
if you're passing on the right. If you can't take that in to consideration when you drive, maybe
it's time to turn in your license and start riding the bus.

Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 18:39:21 -0800, James Clark
> > wrote:
>
>
>>>>So the car was passing on the right?
>>>
>>>
>>>What's wrong with passing on the right? (I gather that you
>>>think it's noteworthy because you believe it's wrong. If not,
>>>please feel free to set me straight.)
>>
>>If the car swerved off the freeway when truck changed lanes, it's a safe bet that the truck was
>>changing into the rightmost lane. You are ****ing and moaning about slower traffic not using the
>>right lane and that is what the truck driver was doing.
>
>
> If the truck was in the #2 (middle) lane and was in the process of
> changing into the #3 (right) lane, he was not USING the right lane -
> he was ATTEMPTING to use it.



If If If If If If If If If If If If If If If If If If If If If If If If


Perhaps he was passing slower traffic in the right line?

Earlier I wrote:

: It's fashionable to insist that if you're passing on the right and get
: struck by another vehicle that's changing lanes to the right, it's
: somehow _your_ fault. That's bull****. It's every driver's respon-
: sibility to make sure it's safe to make a lane change before actually
: changing lanes. That applies just as much to lane changes to your
: right as well as to your left.


James Clark > replies:

> If you're passing, you have a better view of the situation than the
> person being passed, especially if you're passing on the right. If
> you can't take that in to consideration when you drive, maybe it's
> time to turn in your license and start riding the bus.


Er, why the nasty tone, James? I don't see that I wrote anything to
justify such a response from you. Nevertheless, I seem to have struck
a nerve. Hemmies acting up?

If you get this emotional discussing abstract driving-related issues,
then I can't help wondering what your temperament is like when you're
actually behind the wheel. Maybe it's you who should migrate to public
transit.

In any case, nothing you said above about passing and being passed
conflicts with what I said, quoted at the top of this post. Sometimes
it isn't possible to get around somebody on the left. If that driver
hits someone who's passing him on the right, it's still his fault,
regardless of who has the better view of the situation. Capisce,
paisano?



Geoff

--
"Nothing says 'I love you' like 100 kilotons." -- Jim Hill

James Clark wrote: <brevity snip>
>
> If you're passing, you have a better view of the situation than
> the person being passed, especially
> if you're passing on the right.

How's -that- work?

You're in the process of passing, side-by-side... so your superior
velocity gives you extra special better view of the situation vision?
And especially if you're passing on the R?

Perhaps I misunderstand...

Assuming you were even momentarily behind the passee before the pass,
wouldn't your extra special better view of the situation vision have
been blocked by same passee, however briefly?

Traffic seems to me to be in an ever changing state. Situations can
and do change at a very rapid rate according to my 20/15 vision.
-----

- gpsman