What exactly is "left lane blocking"?

Skip Elliott Bowman wrote:

> * If I'm alongside a car I'm passing and see your car approaching at 80 from
> 1/4 mile behind, should I immediately abort my pass, even if it means
> colliding with the car I'm passing? Or should I immediately slow down to
> pull into the right lane to allow you to pass first?

At 5 mph, it takes about 3 minutes to cover a quarter mile. Unless you
plan on taking more than 3 minutes to pass, I wouldn't worry about it.

"Arif Khokar" > wrote in message
news
> Skip Elliott Bowman wrote:
>> "Arif Khokar" > wrote:
>
>>>>But maybe conditions don't allow me to pass faster than 5 mph;
>>>>conditions that may include but not be limited to that speed trap 1/4
>>>>ahead that I know about and you don't.
>
>>>If I knew about a speed trap ¼ mile ahead, I'd just remain in the right
>>>lane.
>
>> Arif, did you notice the last three words of my post up there?
>
> Skip, did you notice the first eleven words of your post up there? IOW,
> if I know there's a speed trap up ahead, I don't initiate a pass.

I noticed that you didn't answer my question

> On a similar note, if I'm in the right lane behind someone going 60 mph, I
> don't initiate a pass if the left lane is covered in 3 inches of
> snow/slush.

Wimp--Arif, where are your cojones?

"Arif Khokar" > wrote in message
...
> Skip Elliott Bowman wrote:
>
>> * If I'm alongside a car I'm passing and see your car approaching at 80
>> from 1/4 mile behind, should I immediately abort my pass, even if it
>> means colliding with the car I'm passing? Or should I immediately slow
>> down to pull into the right lane to allow you to pass first?
>
> At 5 mph, it takes about 3 minutes to cover a quarter mile. Unless you
> plan on taking more than 3 minutes to pass, I wouldn't worry about it.

Zacly.

Jim Yanik wrote:
> "Harry K" > wrote in
> oups.com:
>
> >
> > Jim Yanik wrote:
> >> "Harry K" > wrote in
> >> oups.com:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Jim Yanik wrote:
> >> >> "Harry K" > wrote in
> >> >> ups.com:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> ><more snippo>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Huh?? YOU claim STKR applies while I am pssing. Up up to
YOU
> > to
> >> >> >> > provide the cite if you need one.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Harry K
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> copied from above text;
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> HK;
> >> >> >> STKR does not
> >> >> >> apply while I am passing
> >> >> >> > >>
> >> >> >> JY;
> >> >> >> SAYS WHO? It applies ALL the time.
> >> >> >> Let's see a cite on that.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> So,YOU made the assertion that it does not apply while you
are
> >> >> > passing,so
> >> >> >> YOU need to provide a cite to support it.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> sloth passing is just another form of LLBing.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> Jim Yanik
> >> >> >> jyanik
> >> >> >> at
> >> >> >> kua.net
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Jim, you are getting too desperate to continue this. Nice
twist,
> >> > you
> >> >> > insist STKR applies. Using your logic, persons in the right
> > lane
> >> > can
> >> >> > never
> >> >>
> >> >> "never"???
> >> >>
> >> >> > pass and Since when is passing with a 10mph differential
'sloth
> >> >> > passing'?
> >> >>
> >> >> At first you were saying FIVE mph.Now you've changed it to 10
mph.
> >> >
> >> > You want to go back and show where I ever said 5mph??
> >> >
> >> > Answer the question
> >> >
> >> > Harry K
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> AGAIN;
> >> You still need to provide that cite to support your own
statement;
> >> "STKR does not apply while I am passing".
> >>
> >> You can't,because it is NOT TRUE.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Jim Yanik
> >> jyanik
> >> at
> >> kua.net
> >
> > Not man enough to admit you made a mistake eh??
> >
> > Harry K
> >
> >
>
> Lets see your cite,Harry;back up your assertion.
> That's the REAL question here.
>
> --
> Jim Yanik
> jyanik
> at
> kua.net

Well, since you insist I stopped by the local SO (I used to work
there). There were 3 Patrol present, I put forward your stance that I
am somehow supposed to stay right while passing or rather rephrased to
STKR applies while passing. All three had the same reply "The guy is a
moron".
I also put forward your stance that I am required to speed up to
accommodate you. Same response.
I did discover something about the law I didn't know. 'On a three or
more lane (in same direction) freeway, trucks and vehicles towing a
trailers are prohibited in the left most lane'.

Harry K

Harry K

"Skip Elliott Bowman" > wrote in
nk.net:

>
> "Jim Yanik" .> wrote in message
> .. .
>> "Harry K" > wrote in
>> oups.com:
>
>>> Not man enough to admit you made a mistake eh??
>>>
>>> Harry K
>
>> Lets see your cite,Harry;back up your assertion.
>> That's the REAL question here.
>
> Here's the cite, Jim: it was in one of my own posts that I mentioned
> passing at 5 mph, not Harry. It was me.
>
> So by saying Harry wrote that, you made a mistake.
>
>
>

Wrong topic.
The cite I've repeately asked for is about Harry's assertion the STKR does
NOT apply if on is in the act of passing,which you have snipped from your
post.

My mistake on who said what about the 5mph-10 mph post is merely
sidestepping the REAL issue,the topic of this thread.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Arif Khokar > wrote in
:

> Skip Elliott Bowman wrote:
>
>> * If I'm alongside a car I'm passing and see your car approaching at
>> 80 from 1/4 mile behind, should I immediately abort my pass, even if
>> it means colliding with the car I'm passing? Or should I immediately
>> slow down to pull into the right lane to allow you to pass first?
>
> At 5 mph, it takes about 3 minutes to cover a quarter mile. Unless
> you plan on taking more than 3 minutes to pass, I wouldn't worry about
> it.

That would be "completing the pass" before the faster car would be
hindered,thus no problem.
But they expect to be able to pass regardless of faster traffic,MFFY
behavior and LLBing.(duration of blocking is not relevant,it's still
*blocking*)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 19:19:01 GMT, Arif Khokar >
wrote:

>Big Bill wrote:
>
>> Maybe I haver a problem understanding what yiou mean because I read
>> what you wrote.
>
>The fact is that 2 people had no problem understanding what I wrote the
>first time and required no further clarification. You, OTOH, continue
>to purposefully sidetrack the discussion due to your inability to
>understand what I actually meant even after multiple clarifications.
>
>Either you're doing it on purpose as a form of entertainment, or you're
>mentally handicapped.

Like I said before, if you can't write what you mean, we can't be
expected to know what you mean.
I'll even expand: if you can't write what you mean, don't complain
when people don't understand what you write.
--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 19:19:00 GMT, Arif Khokar >
wrote:

>Big Bill wrote:
>
>> See, here's a great example of what I'm saying.
>> You obviously haven't read what you yourself wrote.
>> You said "such as", which does not limit actions to your above
>> examples.
>
>Neither Scott nor Nate had a problem properly interpreting the sentence
>I wrote. Why are you having a problem? I wrote the sentence, and I
>certainly am in a position to clarify its meaning.

That *you* understood what you wrote is absolutely amazing, since you
obviously didn't write what you meant.
That Scott understood what you meant is a testimony to his inability
to read what you wrote.
If I were either of you, I wouldn't brag about this.
>
>Here's a clarification for you.
>
>Any action that requires you to yield to other traffic before making a
>maneuver fits the criteria of a maneuver you should not undertake unless
>it will not affect the speed and direction of other traffic that could
>possibly interact with you. This does not apply to traffic behind you
>in the same lane that have to slow down if you yourself are yielding.

So you're saying that I should extend courtesy to other drivers?
If so, prepare yourself! That's heresy!
If, OTOH, you're saying that if I have to yield before making a
maneuver that *MIGHT* affect other drivers, making them slow down or
change lanes (the HORROR!), I should forego the maneuver?
Get real. It's called *TRAFFIC*, and other drivers have to adjust to
it every time they drive.

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

Big Bill wrote:

> On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 19:19:00 GMT, Arif Khokar >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Big Bill wrote:
>>
>>
>>>See, here's a great example of what I'm saying.
>>>You obviously haven't read what you yourself wrote.
>>>You said "such as", which does not limit actions to your above
>>>examples.
>>
>>Neither Scott nor Nate had a problem properly interpreting the sentence
>>I wrote. Why are you having a problem? I wrote the sentence, and I
>>certainly am in a position to clarify its meaning.
>
>
> That *you* understood what you wrote is absolutely amazing, since you
> obviously didn't write what you meant.
> That Scott understood what you meant is a testimony to his inability
> to read what you wrote.
> If I were either of you, I wouldn't brag about this.
>
>>Here's a clarification for you.
>>
>>Any action that requires you to yield to other traffic before making a
>>maneuver fits the criteria of a maneuver you should not undertake unless
>>it will not affect the speed and direction of other traffic that could
>>possibly interact with you. This does not apply to traffic behind you
>>in the same lane that have to slow down if you yourself are yielding.
>
>
> So you're saying that I should extend courtesy to other drivers?
> If so, prepare yourself! That's heresy!
> If, OTOH, you're saying that if I have to yield before making a
> maneuver that *MIGHT* affect other drivers, making them slow down or
> change lanes (the HORROR!), I should forego the maneuver?

That's exactly correct.

> Get real. It's called *TRAFFIC*, and other drivers have to adjust to
> it every time they drive.
>

That doesn't mean you should deliberately drive like an a-hole.

nate

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

"Jim Yanik" .> wrote in message
.. .
> "Skip Elliott Bowman" > wrote in
> nk.net:

>> Here's the cite, Jim: it was in one of my own posts that I mentioned
>> passing at 5 mph, not Harry. It was me.
>>
>> So by saying Harry wrote that, you made a mistake.

> Wrong topic.
> The cite I've repeately asked for is about Harry's assertion the STKR does
> NOT apply if on is in the act of passing,which you have snipped from your
> post.
>
> My mistake on who said what about the 5mph-10 mph post is merely
> sidestepping the REAL issue,the topic of this thread.

Well, you know how we can get bogged down in details here.