critique my freeway driving habits

Usual Suspect wrote:
> MY RATIONALE:

Typical MFFY bull****. Get the **** out of our way.

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 21:43:28 GMT, Arif Khokar >
wrote:

>TCS wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 21:08:31 GMT, Arif Khokar > wrote:
>
>>>>Lane changes are inherently dangerous and doing several hundred
>>>>every hour is just asking for an accident.
>
>> Then please refute my statement. You think zigging in and out of traffic
>> is perfectly safe?
>
>Per hour, I make anywhere from 60 to 240 lane changes. I've never been
>involved in a collision due to a lane change.

You change lanes at least once per minute and up to once every 15
seconds?

I have a hard time believing you're a good driver if you change lanes
that often.

"Sam O'Nella" > wrote in message
...
>>> 7. I've never heard of anyone being ticketed for blocking the left
>>> lane while doing the speed limit or more.
>>
>> Then you haven't been stopped by me. A lady I stopped and ticketed
>> for that very thing last week had no clue why she was getting a
>> ticket. I tried my best to explain what that lane is for, to no
>> avail. Then she decided she didn't want to sign the ticket because
>> she still didn't understand. After being told that she'd be sitting
>> in front of a judge after a night at the taxpayer's expense, she
>> signed. I don't think I'm on her Christmas card list anymore.
>
> You just got on mine. Keep up the good work.

Ditto

Usual Suspect wrote:

> jaybird wrote:
>
>> Therein lies the problem.**You're*keeping*your*own*interests*in*min d.
>
> Everyone does. Some people (libs, communists) just lie about it.

What a clever and interesting post

Nate Nagel wrote:

>
> Ad hominem would imply that there's no basis for the things people are
> saying about you. Based on your posts, I don't think that that applies.
> Suck it up and admit you're not the best driver in the world, and
> start learning from what people are saying.
>
> nate
>

No, ad hominem means you are attempting to refute an argument by making an
irrelevant attack on the person making it.

Robert F Merrill wrote:

> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>
>>Ad hominem would imply that there's no basis for the things people are
>>saying about you. Based on your posts, I don't think that that applies.
>> Suck it up and admit you're not the best driver in the world, and
>>start learning from what people are saying.
>>
>>nate
>>
>
>
> No, ad hominem means you are attempting to refute an argument by making an
> irrelevant attack on the person making it.

Exactly. Since it's a very relevant attack, it's not an ad hominem.

nate

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

>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Ad hominem would imply that there's no basis for the things people are
>>>saying about you. Based on your posts, I don't think that that applies.
>>> Suck it up and admit you're not the best driver in the world, and
>>>start learning from what people are saying.

Ad hominem: marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an
answer to the contentions made (from Merriam Webster)

The contention of course was that lane changes pose some risk even if done
"correctly", and therefore should be minimized.

BTW, as per your request, I admit that I'm not the best driver in the world.
It appears however, that you have delusions about your being one.

Olaf Gustafson wrote:

> You change lanes at least once per minute and up to once every 15
> seconds?
>
> I have a hard time believing you're a good driver if you change lanes
> that often.

I keep right except to pass. I also drive a bit faster than most
traffic in the vicinity. Most people around here actually keep right
except to pass as well.

Bernard farquart wrote:

>
> "Usual Suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Usual Suspect wrote:
>>
>>> Garth Almgren wrote:
>>>
>>>> VC 21654
>>>> (a) Notwithstanding the prima facie speed limits, any
>>>> vehicle proceeding upon a highway at a speed less than the normal
>>>> speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time shall be
>>>
>>>
>>> Aha! If you read my original post in this thread, you will notice
>>>
>>> "If I don't have to exit for another 5-10 miles and the freeway is
>>> divided, I tend to get into the left lane and stay there, driving at
>>> 75-80
>>> mph, which usually puts me in the 70-90th percentile, or so, in terms of
>>> speed."
>>>
>>> Thanks for showing that my behavior (other than speeding) is legal.
>>>
>>> ...
>>
>> God, I'm so excited about my winning this argument with Jailbird and the
>> rest of "get out of my lane, because I'm speeding" apologists, I'm
>> tempted to take the rest of the afternoon off and go for a drive (in the
>> left lane,
>> of course).
>
> I can not see your victory, perhaps it
> does not exist?

The law that was quoted does not prohibit constantly driving in the left
lane. More so, it does not prohibit doing it EVEN if one's speed matches
that of cars in the right lane.

I call that a crushing defeat of "get out of my lane" crybabies. Case
closed.

Usual Suspect wrote:

> The law that was quoted does not prohibit constantly driving in the left
> lane. More so, it does not prohibit doing it EVEN if one's speed matches
> that of cars in the right lane.

It does. You are slower than traffic that was gaining on you that wants
to pass.