Clump

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:58:19 -0800, Garth Almgren > wrote:

>Around 1/13/2005 12:52 PM, wrote:
>> Which still creates a whole pile of lane changes.
>
>So? Who cares? Changing lanes is an integral part of driving.

As explained earlier, every overt act carries with it the possibility of going
wrong and causing an accident. I've seen some near misses as people try to
change lanes toward the center of 3 lanes, from the opposite sides. These
kinds of screw-ups are sometimes really hard to detect.

The best way to keep things from getting dangerous is to avoid doing things
that increase risk. Changing lanes increases risk. So, if someone is at the
90th percentile of speed, and encounters 2000 other cars, he's going to be
passing 1800 of them. The best thing to do then is to stay left, and allow
those 10% going faster go around on the right. That results in only 200 lane
changes (or lane change pairs) instead of 1800. Makes sense to me, and is done
without allegence to a mantra or a religeous approach. Nevermind the "ITS
ILLEGAL" bleat as anyone catching anyone at the 90th percentile of speed is
already illegal, anyway. Obey all the laws of forget about 'em.

>If you're so afraid of changing lanes, keep to the right and you'll
>rarely have to change lanes, except for those oddball left exits.

Noooo.... it doesn't work like that. Stay in the _left_ lane and never have to
change lanes (unless someone flashes or honks, which they NEVER do...)

In article >, Dave Head wrote:

>>And I see cops and broken down vehicles on the left about 40% of the
>>time.

> I can't recall the last time I saw any such in or near the left lane.

I see it regularly on chicago area interstates. Stupid, yes. but stupid
is common too.

In article >, Dave Head wrote:

>>And I see cops and broken down vehicles on the left about 40% of the
>>time.

> I can't recall the last time I saw any such in or near the left lane.

I see it regularly on chicago area interstates. Stupid, yes. but stupid
is common too.

In article >, Dave Head wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:31:48 -0600, (Brent
> P) wrote:
>
>>In article >, Dave Head wrote:

>>> forth just to satisfy some archaic notion, based on a law that was repealed
>>> about 35 years ago.
>>
>>Repealed? It's the law in most states.

> And totally unenforced, like some of the laws on the books that require someone
> walking in front of an autombile within the city limits while ringing a bell
> announcing the approach.

unenforced != repealed.

>>IL made it's KRETP law tighter as of last year.

> Tighter? As in bigger fines, I imagine.

Better language. It's no longer 'slower traffic keep right' it's keep
right except to pass.

> There's no arguing that the laws are
> being more and more engineered simply as a revenue source. Yet, you likely
> _still_ won't get stopped for it, especially if there's no one in the right
> lane.

The ISP has written about 40 tickets on it. Not exactly revenue
generation. Having heard and exchanged email with the legislator who
sponsored the change, I find him to be interested in _real_ road safety.

I see you didn't bother dealing with the rest of the post. Constant speed
+ no lane changes = clumps.

In article >, Dave Head wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:31:48 -0600, (Brent
> P) wrote:
>
>>In article >, Dave Head wrote:

>>> forth just to satisfy some archaic notion, based on a law that was repealed
>>> about 35 years ago.
>>
>>Repealed? It's the law in most states.

> And totally unenforced, like some of the laws on the books that require someone
> walking in front of an autombile within the city limits while ringing a bell
> announcing the approach.

unenforced != repealed.

>>IL made it's KRETP law tighter as of last year.

> Tighter? As in bigger fines, I imagine.

Better language. It's no longer 'slower traffic keep right' it's keep
right except to pass.

> There's no arguing that the laws are
> being more and more engineered simply as a revenue source. Yet, you likely
> _still_ won't get stopped for it, especially if there's no one in the right
> lane.

The ISP has written about 40 tickets on it. Not exactly revenue
generation. Having heard and exchanged email with the legislator who
sponsored the change, I find him to be interested in _real_ road safety.

I see you didn't bother dealing with the rest of the post. Constant speed
+ no lane changes = clumps.

In article >, Dave Head wrote:

> The best way to keep things from getting dangerous is to avoid doing things
> that increase risk. Changing lanes increases risk.

So why are you complaining about clumps then? Clumps are what happens
when people don't change lanes. Clumps are the result of exactly what you
are preaching.

In article >, Dave Head wrote:

> The best way to keep things from getting dangerous is to avoid doing things
> that increase risk. Changing lanes increases risk.

So why are you complaining about clumps then? Clumps are what happens
when people don't change lanes. Clumps are the result of exactly what you
are preaching.

(Brent P) wrote in
:

> In article >, Dave Head wrote:
>
>>>And I see cops and broken down vehicles on the left about 40% of the
>>>time.
>
>> I can't recall the last time I saw any such in or near the left lane.

Oh,If DH doesn't see it,that means it doesn't happen anywhere else....NOT.


>
> I see it regularly on chicago area interstates. Stupid, yes. but stupid
> is common too.
>
>
>

If your left tire goes flat,one pulls off onto the median to change it,to
keep on the far side of traffic.
Unless you like being struck by a zombie driver.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

(Brent P) wrote in
:

> In article >, Dave Head wrote:
>
>>>And I see cops and broken down vehicles on the left about 40% of the
>>>time.
>
>> I can't recall the last time I saw any such in or near the left lane.

Oh,If DH doesn't see it,that means it doesn't happen anywhere else....NOT.


>
> I see it regularly on chicago area interstates. Stupid, yes. but stupid
> is common too.
>
>
>

If your left tire goes flat,one pulls off onto the median to change it,to
keep on the far side of traffic.
Unless you like being struck by a zombie driver.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Dave Head > wrote in
:

> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 23:13:58 -0500, Nate Nagel >
> wrote:
>
>>Dave Head wrote:
>>
>>> and those of the others as I move back into the right lane, or stay
>>> left, and let 200 other cars (that probably shouldn't be going that
>>> fast anyway),which I
>>
>>that ain't your call to make, unless you're a cop.
>
> Just glossed right over the numbers that have an extra 1800 lane
> changes being performed on a 2000 mile trip for no good reason other
> than to satisfy an archaic notion and/or religious treatment of the
> subject.



Archaic only in your mind.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net