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
  #51  
Old December 30th 04, 06:59 AM
Anthony Giorgianni
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I'm not arguing whether speeding is bad or sloth merging is bad. I'm just
raising
the issue of whether we can take it upon ourselves to somehow interfere with
driving behavior we don't agree with, no matter what it is. I don't
understand how people can in one breath be opposed to those who block the
left lane in an effort to "not enable" speeders and at the same time same
say it's okay to take some action to "not enable" those who engage in some
other type of driving behavior.

I do not think people should speed. Some of my view has to do with safety.
It also has to do with what I see as our responsibilities in a society in
which we treasure more than anything else the rule of law and the freedom it
guarantees. But that being said, I certainly am not going to interfere with
a speeder. If you think it's okay to speed, it's my obligation as a safe
driver to get out of your way, even if I think doing so enables it enables
your behavior. I think you'd agree that to do anything else would be
inappropriate and even dangerous. But what you can't say is it's wrong to
interfere with speeders but okay to interfere with other types of driving
behavior, especially behavior that, unlike speeding, is not even illegal. To
suggest that you can have it both ways is shear hypocrisy. Can't you see
that? Once you create an atmosphere of highway vigilantism for one type of
behavior, you do it for all types of behavior - speeding included. I say
let's all agree drive defensively, non-aggressively and stop thinking about
imparting lessons - because you're only going to encourage the other guy to
give you a lesson of his own. And that makes the highways more dangerous.


--
Regards,
Anthony Giorgianni

The return address for this post is fictitious. Please reply by posting back
to the newsgroup.


<snip>



Ads
  #52  
Old December 30th 04, 07:09 AM
fbloogyudsr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Anthony Giorgianni" >
wrote
> I'm not arguing whether speeding is bad or sloth merging is bad. I'm just
> raising
> the issue of whether we can take it upon ourselves to somehow interfere
> with
> driving behavior we don't agree with, no matter what it is. I don't
> understand how people can in one breath be opposed to those who block the
> left lane in an effort to "not enable" speeders and at the same time same
> say it's okay to take some action to "not enable" those who engage in some
> other type of driving behavior.


You mis-understand: sloth mergers interfere *with the drivers already
there*.
No-one here is advocating blocking people from merging *safely* onto the
freeway.

> I do not think people should speed. Some of my view has to do with safety.


Posted speed limits have little to do with safety. You only have to read
all the existing traffic research papers (that have had links posted in this
NG
many times) to see that. Upon that point, your argument that speeders
and sloth mergers are eqivalent falls apart.

Floyd

> It also has to do with what I see as our responsibilities in a society in
> which we treasure more than anything else the rule of law and the freedom
> it
> guarantees. But that being said, I certainly am not going to interfere
> with
> a speeder. If you think it's okay to speed, it's my obligation as a safe
> driver to get out of your way, even if I think doing so enables it enables
> your behavior. I think you'd agree that to do anything else would be
> inappropriate and even dangerous. But what you can't say is it's wrong to
> interfere with speeders but okay to interfere with other types of driving
> behavior, especially behavior that, unlike speeding, is not even illegal.
> To
> suggest that you can have it both ways is shear hypocrisy. Can't you see
> that? Once you create an atmosphere of highway vigilantism for one type of
> behavior, you do it for all types of behavior - speeding included. I say
> let's all agree drive defensively, non-aggressively and stop thinking
> about
> imparting lessons - because you're only going to encourage the other guy
> to
> give you a lesson of his own. And that makes the highways more dangerous.
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Anthony Giorgianni
>
> The return address for this post is fictitious. Please reply by posting
> back
> to the newsgroup.
>
>
> <snip>
>
>
>


  #53  
Old December 30th 04, 07:09 AM
fbloogyudsr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Anthony Giorgianni" >
wrote
> I'm not arguing whether speeding is bad or sloth merging is bad. I'm just
> raising
> the issue of whether we can take it upon ourselves to somehow interfere
> with
> driving behavior we don't agree with, no matter what it is. I don't
> understand how people can in one breath be opposed to those who block the
> left lane in an effort to "not enable" speeders and at the same time same
> say it's okay to take some action to "not enable" those who engage in some
> other type of driving behavior.


You mis-understand: sloth mergers interfere *with the drivers already
there*.
No-one here is advocating blocking people from merging *safely* onto the
freeway.

> I do not think people should speed. Some of my view has to do with safety.


Posted speed limits have little to do with safety. You only have to read
all the existing traffic research papers (that have had links posted in this
NG
many times) to see that. Upon that point, your argument that speeders
and sloth mergers are eqivalent falls apart.

Floyd

> It also has to do with what I see as our responsibilities in a society in
> which we treasure more than anything else the rule of law and the freedom
> it
> guarantees. But that being said, I certainly am not going to interfere
> with
> a speeder. If you think it's okay to speed, it's my obligation as a safe
> driver to get out of your way, even if I think doing so enables it enables
> your behavior. I think you'd agree that to do anything else would be
> inappropriate and even dangerous. But what you can't say is it's wrong to
> interfere with speeders but okay to interfere with other types of driving
> behavior, especially behavior that, unlike speeding, is not even illegal.
> To
> suggest that you can have it both ways is shear hypocrisy. Can't you see
> that? Once you create an atmosphere of highway vigilantism for one type of
> behavior, you do it for all types of behavior - speeding included. I say
> let's all agree drive defensively, non-aggressively and stop thinking
> about
> imparting lessons - because you're only going to encourage the other guy
> to
> give you a lesson of his own. And that makes the highways more dangerous.
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Anthony Giorgianni
>
> The return address for this post is fictitious. Please reply by posting
> back
> to the newsgroup.
>
>
> <snip>
>
>
>


  #54  
Old December 30th 04, 07:12 AM
Brent P
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, Anthony Giorgianni wrote:
> I'm not arguing whether speeding is bad or sloth merging is bad. I'm just
> raising the issue of whether we can take it upon ourselves to somehow interfere with
> driving behavior we don't agree with, no matter what it is.


It's a social issue. And like any other can be corrected with proper
social pressures. How do you know not to fart in elevator? or not to
shout in a movie theater? Or all sorts of other things?

  #55  
Old December 30th 04, 07:12 AM
Brent P
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, Anthony Giorgianni wrote:
> I'm not arguing whether speeding is bad or sloth merging is bad. I'm just
> raising the issue of whether we can take it upon ourselves to somehow interfere with
> driving behavior we don't agree with, no matter what it is.


It's a social issue. And like any other can be corrected with proper
social pressures. How do you know not to fart in elevator? or not to
shout in a movie theater? Or all sorts of other things?

  #56  
Old December 30th 04, 08:49 PM
Timothy J. Lee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article <nFIAd.658181$D%.491734@attbi_s51>,
Brent P > wrote:
>In article >, Timothy J. Lee wrote:
>
>> 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).

>
>They usually aren't half way in the lane. I've held course and speed many
>times and never crashed. Sure there are times when one is forced to take
>action but they are few and far and between.


Then what do you do when a slow merger is entering at a speed to that
s/he will reach the merge point (and be forced to enter the right lane)
just at the point where you will be right behind him/her? Either you
slow down, change lanes, or rear end the slow merger in that case.
Or you can speed up to try to pass, but that can be problematical if
you are behind someone else at your minimum safe following distance, or
if the slow merger turns out to not be as slow as you thought.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome.
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.
  #57  
Old December 30th 04, 08:49 PM
Timothy J. Lee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article <nFIAd.658181$D%.491734@attbi_s51>,
Brent P > wrote:
>In article >, Timothy J. Lee wrote:
>
>> 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).

>
>They usually aren't half way in the lane. I've held course and speed many
>times and never crashed. Sure there are times when one is forced to take
>action but they are few and far and between.


Then what do you do when a slow merger is entering at a speed to that
s/he will reach the merge point (and be forced to enter the right lane)
just at the point where you will be right behind him/her? Either you
slow down, change lanes, or rear end the slow merger in that case.
Or you can speed up to try to pass, but that can be problematical if
you are behind someone else at your minimum safe following distance, or
if the slow merger turns out to not be as slow as you thought.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome.
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.
  #58  
Old December 31st 04, 03:19 AM
Brent P
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, Timothy J. Lee wrote:
> In article <nFIAd.658181$D%.491734@attbi_s51>,
> Brent P > wrote:
>>In article >, Timothy J. Lee wrote:
>>
>>> 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).

>>
>>They usually aren't half way in the lane. I've held course and speed many
>>times and never crashed. Sure there are times when one is forced to take
>>action but they are few and far and between.


> Then what do you do when a slow merger is entering at a speed to that
> s/he will reach the merge point (and be forced to enter the right lane)
> just at the point where you will be right behind him/her?


That's the few and far between. I usually change lanes AND accelerate.


  #59  
Old December 31st 04, 03:19 AM
Brent P
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, Timothy J. Lee wrote:
> In article <nFIAd.658181$D%.491734@attbi_s51>,
> Brent P > wrote:
>>In article >, Timothy J. Lee wrote:
>>
>>> 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).

>>
>>They usually aren't half way in the lane. I've held course and speed many
>>times and never crashed. Sure there are times when one is forced to take
>>action but they are few and far and between.


> Then what do you do when a slow merger is entering at a speed to that
> s/he will reach the merge point (and be forced to enter the right lane)
> just at the point where you will be right behind him/her?


That's the few and far between. I usually change lanes AND accelerate.


  #60  
Old December 31st 04, 03:33 AM
Anthony Giorgianni
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Floyd

Whether posted speed limits have anything to do with safety has nothing to
do with the issue. The question is whether it's okay for drivers to
interfere with speeders if they don't agree with speeding and whether it's
okay for drivers to interfere with others who do other things they don't
like, such as slow lane merging. I say not okay. And I don't think you can
say yes for one but no for the other, especially if you are saying no for
speeding when speeding, unlike slow lane merging, is illegal, whether you
agree with the speed laws or not. That's all.


--
Regards,
Anthony Giorgianni

The return address for this post is fictitious. Please reply by posting back
to the newsgroup.


 




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 06:55 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.