What exactly is "left lane blocking"?

Big Bill > wrote in
:

> On 6 Apr 2005 15:42:30 GMT, Jim Yanik .> wrote:
>
>>Big Bill > wrote in
m:
>>
>>> On 6 Apr 2005 00:30:07 GMT, Jim Yanik .> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Whether or not I have a "right" to speed,it does not permit other
>>>>non-LEOs from being "enforcers" by engaging in behavior they would
>>>>not do for those *under* the speed limit,LLBing or blocking faster
>>>>traffic thats under the SL.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Passing at a reasonable speed,
>>
>>What YOU consider "reasonable",actually is not;it's blocking faster
>>traffci,violates STKR.
>
> No, *you* consider it blocking.

It IS blocking.SLOWER Traffic Keep Right,KRETP.
One of the basic organizing rules of the road.
(that LLBers and sloth passers screw up)

> You don't seem to understand that your bleating is about having to
> slow up for a few seconds, just like everyone else in traffic.
>>
>>
>>>and pulling back right when done isn't
>>> enforcing anything.
>>
>>When people state that "you'll just have to slow down to MY
>>speed",that's enforcing.
>
> Do you read what you write?
> You're saying exactly that, and you don't even realize it!

That's what the LLB/sloth passers say,yes,I agree.

>>
>>> You need to stop whining that you don't always get your way.
>>
>>STKR says faster traffic gets priority.
>
> And the speed limit says you can't go that fast.

And there's the "enforcing" part of your LL-BLOCKING.
And no authority for you to do so.




--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 13:29:44 -0700, Ignasi Palou-Rivera
> wrote:

>I guess what I was trying to convey is that driver license points
>allow insurance companies to act as a cartel increasing their premiums
>without any competition that would benefit the costumer.

Aren't you suggesting price-fixing?

I realize full well that some think auto insurance is nothing but a
scam, but I don' tunderstand the above, especially after I pointed out
the often huge difference in rates for identical risks among different
insurance companies.
This would seem to argue against the ideas that insurance companies
act as a cartel, and instead price their services such that a wide
variety of rates are seen for identical coverage for identical risks.
Especially when such variety in rates exists for the absolute minimum
coverage required by the various states.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 13:26:10 -0700, Ignasi Palou-Rivera
> wrote:

>"Daniel W. Rouse Jr." > writes:
>
>> "Ignasi Palou-Rivera" > wrote in message
>> news:1112744098.5ad902024a30ddb06d6a2eaf5506729e@t eranews...
>>> DYM > writes:
>>> > Jim Yanik .> wrote in
>>> > :
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> Get real.The 55 NMSL was not changed until MASSIVE non-compliance
>>> > forced
>>> >> it.Far too many people have a vested interest in low speed
>>> > limits,like
>>> >> insurance companies and police.
>>> >>
>>> > I understand where you think the police have a vested interest,
>>> > "revenue enhancement". But what is the vested interest of insurance
>>> > companies?
>>>
>>> Are you serious?
>>>
>>> Low speed limits ->
>>> more speed violations ->
>>
>> Only for drivers incapable of controlling their vehicle at all speeds, fast
>> and slow. Some drivers seem to only be able to accelerate, not wanting to
>> even let up on the accelerator, let alone brake.
>
>Are you trying to dispute that further lowering speed limits increases
>the number of violators/violations? Because your paragraph above
>doesn't make any sense in this context.

I understood him to mean that lowering speed limits doesn't *require*
an increase in such violations, just as the existance of banks doesn't
*require* the existance of bank robbers.
>
>>
>>> more driver license points ->
>>> higher insurance premiums
>>>
>> Which would be justified and deserved.
>
>Says you.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
> "Ignasi Palou-Rivera" > wrote in message
> news:1112744098.5ad902024a30ddb06d6a2eaf5506729e@t eranews...
> > DYM > writes:
> > > Jim Yanik .> wrote in
> > > :
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Get real.The 55 NMSL was not changed until MASSIVE
non-compliance
> > > forced
> > >> it.Far too many people have a vested interest in low speed
> > > limits,like
> > >> insurance companies and police.
> > >>
> > > I understand where you think the police have a vested interest,
> > > "revenue enhancement". But what is the vested interest of
insurance
> > > companies?
> >
> > Are you serious?
> >
> > Low speed limits ->
> > more speed violations ->
>
> Only for drivers incapable of controlling their vehicle at all
speeds, fast
> and slow. Some drivers seem to only be able to accelerate, not
wanting to
> even let up on the accelerator, let alone brake.

I don't know about you, but I'm not willing to put myself at risk by
driving at a speed markedly below the general flow of traffic. That's
just stupid, although it is what both law enforcement and the insurance
companies would have me do. this is why I have little respect for
either.

>
> > more driver license points ->
> > higher insurance premiums
> >
> Which would be justified and deserved.

Justified and deserved? So you're saying I *should* drive in an unsafe
manner?

>
> > Quita a simple chain of events.
> >
> Indeed.

Indeed it is, but I don't think that we are looking at it the same way.

nate

"N8N" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
> > "Ignasi Palou-Rivera" > wrote in message
> > news:1112744098.5ad902024a30ddb06d6a2eaf5506729e@t eranews...
> > > DYM > writes:
> > > > Jim Yanik .> wrote in
> > > > :
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> Get real.The 55 NMSL was not changed until MASSIVE
> non-compliance
> > > > forced
> > > >> it.Far too many people have a vested interest in low speed
> > > > limits,like
> > > >> insurance companies and police.
> > > >>
> > > > I understand where you think the police have a vested interest,
> > > > "revenue enhancement". But what is the vested interest of
> insurance
> > > > companies?
> > >
> > > Are you serious?
> > >
> > > Low speed limits ->
> > > more speed violations ->
> >
> > Only for drivers incapable of controlling their vehicle at all
> speeds, fast
> > and slow. Some drivers seem to only be able to accelerate, not
> wanting to
> > even let up on the accelerator, let alone brake.
>
> I don't know about you, but I'm not willing to put myself at risk by
> driving at a speed markedly below the general flow of traffic. That's
> just stupid, although it is what both law enforcement and the insurance
> companies would have me do. this is why I have little respect for
> either.
>
Following the flow of traffic isn't going to work if you're cited for
speeding, or are involved in a traffic collision.

Essentially, if I do speed, it's because traffic conditions are illegally
unsafe for me to travel at the speed limit (and law enforcement isn't doing
their job well enough). Here I'm talking afternoon traffic--not rush hour
traffic jams, but everyday afternoon traffic... up to 100mph in the left
lane of a 4 lane interstate, between 75 and 85 in the middle two lanes, and
trucks doing around 60 mph maximum due to their speed governors. As such, I
either travel too slowly by remaining in the now hazardous right lane (not
necessarily due to trucks, but due to cars merging well above the speed of
traffic in the rightmost lane), or else I am essentially forced to speed in
the other lanes.

However, on the occasion that the freeways are reasonably open (e.g, after
midnight), then the speeders usually stick to the left two lanes, leaving me
free to drive near the speed limit (let's say 65mph to 70mph) in the number
3 lane, and the trucks in the number 4 lane can still do their governed
speed like before. The difference is, I don't have to wildly accelerate and
then brake suddenly to make lane changes and such. Cars that wish to pass me
can always pass me, although it is rather puzzling why they either a) wait
until their headlights are almost on my bumper or b) pass on the right...
when in both cases, the lane to the left is completely open and they could
have merged left to pass a lot sooner.

> >
> > > more driver license points ->
> > > higher insurance premiums
> > >
> > Which would be justified and deserved.
>
> Justified and deserved? So you're saying I *should* drive in an unsafe
> manner?
>
I'm saying that I still believe that drivers should follow the
laws--including speed limits--and as such, if they choose not to obey the
speed limits, that they should be just as willing to accept the citations,
fines, license points, and higher premiums as a justified consequence for
disobeying those laws.

And as following distances start to get closer, it is always better to
decrease speed limits, rather than increase the speed limits.

Big Bill > wrote in
:

> On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 13:29:44 -0700, Ignasi Palou-Rivera
> wrote:
>
>>I guess what I was trying to convey is that driver license points
>>allow insurance companies to act as a cartel increasing their premiums
>>without any competition that would benefit the costumer.
>
> Aren't you suggesting price-fixing?

I suggest that insurance companies closely monitor what other ins.companies
are doing,and price their offerings similarly. Sometimes they slightly
change each offering's specs so the rates are not directly comparable.
Many commercial businesses other than ins.companies do this in some manner.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

On 7 Apr 2005 23:55:04 GMT, Jim Yanik .> wrote:

>Big Bill > wrote in
:
>
>> On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 13:29:44 -0700, Ignasi Palou-Rivera
> wrote:
>>
>>>I guess what I was trying to convey is that driver license points
>>>allow insurance companies to act as a cartel increasing their premiums
>>>without any competition that would benefit the costumer.
>>
>> Aren't you suggesting price-fixing?
>
>I suggest that insurance companies closely monitor what other ins.companies
>are doing,and price their offerings similarly. Sometimes they slightly
>change each offering's specs so the rates are not directly comparable.
>Many commercial businesses other than ins.companies do this in some manner.

Well, I don't see it.
The rates vary too much from company to company.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"