Clump

Dave Head > wrote in
:

> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 16:53:39 -0600,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>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.
>
> Clumps happen when people drive the same speed.
>
> Catch somebody? PASS 'EM!
>

Clumps also happen when people LLB.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

In article >, Dave Head wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 11:23:25 -0600, (Brent
> P) wrote:
>
>>In article >, Dave Head wrote:
>>> Clumps happen when people drive the same speed.
>>
>>Which is what you are proposing. Everyone drive the same speed.
>
> I never said any such thing.

To the record....

-> From: Dave Head >
-> Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
-> Subject: Clump
-> Message-ID: >
->
-> Every overt act, such as accelerating or decelerating,
-> lane changing, etc. carries a potential to go wrong and cause an accident.
-> That's why they should be minimized. If you can drive from 1 coast to the other
-> without changing speed or changing lanes, you should. Other than that,
-> minimize the changes you have to make.

And I responded:

And let me guess, it's you who gets to choose the speed everyone has to
drive at to make that possible. Safety through rigid control of the
population.

Fact: Everybody will NOT drive the same speed.

We can not change this fact. Thusly, your concept of a drive with minimal
lane changing fails. How do we deal with this fact. Keep right except to
pass. This insures that faster traffic can pass slower traffic with a
minimum of spacial conflict.

Your idea only works if you can make everyone drive the same speed,
otherwise, you get the clumps you were complaining about. The clump is
the direct result of your cruise on the left driving. May you continue to
encounter people who drive like you, regardless of which lane you're in.


>>> Catch somebody? PASS 'EM!

>>Passing, lane changes, KRETP, etc you are arguing against.

> If you're already driving in the left lane, you don't have to change lanes to
> pass.

How do you pass the left lane cruiser like you who is slower? Pass
through solid matter?

> There's going to be mostly slow people in the right lane - no matter what
> either of us advocates - so staying left if your fast results in less lane
> changes.

Most slow people don't know they are slow so they go in the LEFT lane.
Like you do. 1 out every 10 slow drivers I encounter is in the right
lane.

>>You hate clumps but argue for the things that cause clumps.

> Nope - I argue for driving with a very large area around you being free of
> cars. That is, if you catch somebody, pass 'em.

You are arguing for clumps, you just don't understand traffic well enough
to realize it.

> I argue for _minimizing_ lane changes, not _eliminating_ them.

I got a suggestion for you, when you merge into the right lane don't make
any further lane changes. This way you eliminate all those lane changes
to the left then back to the right when you exit.

In article >, Dave Head wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 11:23:25 -0600, (Brent
> P) wrote:
>
>>In article >, Dave Head wrote:
>>> Clumps happen when people drive the same speed.
>>
>>Which is what you are proposing. Everyone drive the same speed.
>
> I never said any such thing.

To the record....

-> From: Dave Head >
-> Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
-> Subject: Clump
-> Message-ID: >
->
-> Every overt act, such as accelerating or decelerating,
-> lane changing, etc. carries a potential to go wrong and cause an accident.
-> That's why they should be minimized. If you can drive from 1 coast to the other
-> without changing speed or changing lanes, you should. Other than that,
-> minimize the changes you have to make.

And I responded:

And let me guess, it's you who gets to choose the speed everyone has to
drive at to make that possible. Safety through rigid control of the
population.

Fact: Everybody will NOT drive the same speed.

We can not change this fact. Thusly, your concept of a drive with minimal
lane changing fails. How do we deal with this fact. Keep right except to
pass. This insures that faster traffic can pass slower traffic with a
minimum of spacial conflict.

Your idea only works if you can make everyone drive the same speed,
otherwise, you get the clumps you were complaining about. The clump is
the direct result of your cruise on the left driving. May you continue to
encounter people who drive like you, regardless of which lane you're in.


>>> Catch somebody? PASS 'EM!

>>Passing, lane changes, KRETP, etc you are arguing against.

> If you're already driving in the left lane, you don't have to change lanes to
> pass.

How do you pass the left lane cruiser like you who is slower? Pass
through solid matter?

> There's going to be mostly slow people in the right lane - no matter what
> either of us advocates - so staying left if your fast results in less lane
> changes.

Most slow people don't know they are slow so they go in the LEFT lane.
Like you do. 1 out every 10 slow drivers I encounter is in the right
lane.

>>You hate clumps but argue for the things that cause clumps.

> Nope - I argue for driving with a very large area around you being free of
> cars. That is, if you catch somebody, pass 'em.

You are arguing for clumps, you just don't understand traffic well enough
to realize it.

> I argue for _minimizing_ lane changes, not _eliminating_ them.

I got a suggestion for you, when you merge into the right lane don't make
any further lane changes. This way you eliminate all those lane changes
to the left then back to the right when you exit.

In article >, Dave Head wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 11:28:52 -0600, (Brent
> P) wrote:
>
>>In article >, Dave Head wrote:

>>> Hell, nobody's dealing with the fact that a car at the 90th percentile is going
>>> to make 1800 lane changes over a long trip that causes him to encounter 2000
>>> other cars, as opposed to the fact that he'd only make 200 lane changes by
>>> simply staying left, either.

>>You're ducking the point. But your 30th percentile driver will get left
>>and stay left too driving the way you do.

> I can't help that. I wouldn't do it.

At least 1000s of other drivers would. And your teachings would only
increase their number.

> But if he does, I don't have the least
> qualm about passing his ass on the right, without hesitation.

How are you going to pass him on the right when there is either another
30th percentile driver there or solid stream of passing traffic?

>>Then he finds another 30th
>>precentile driver in the right lane and a clump is caused.

> Only if he slows down to match the other's speed. If he doesn't, he'll go
> right on by... unless...

What do you mean slows? they are both 30th percentile drivers.

> the driver in the right lane speeds up! I accumulate some fininte number of
> ducklings in _that_ manner, too. Those I scrape off at the next slower car in
> the right lane, tho.

Why should he 'speed up'? Just to be kind to you? You really drive in
some sort of fantasy world of your own creation.

>>> A lane change, or _any_ other overt act, carries a possibility of going wrong
>>> and resulting in an accident. Avoiding accidents is a matter of reducing risk
>>> wherever possilble. NOT hopping back and forth, back and forth is one of the
>>> ways...

>>Being on the road does that. Passing does that. To meet your
>>requirements, everyone must drive the same speed,

> Noooo.... not what I'm advocating at all, no matter how you want to twist it to
> suit your argument.

That is _exactly_ what automated roads do. That's why I figure you like
the idea of automated roads, because the automation enforces the
behaviors you argue for.

>>which I am sure you
>>want to pick, and be spread across all lanes. The only way to maintain
>>road capacity or reduce it as little as possible is cram everyone
>>together tightly.

> I'm against that, unless all vehicles are under automatic control, as in a
> train, or computerized individual vehicles. Those vehicles are not currently
> viable.

Automated control or not, it's the same result. Clumps. CLUMPS. To follow
your ideas generates clumps.

>>Which will happen anyway when everyone is limited to
>>the same speed naturally. You hate clumps but argue for the kind of
>>driving that creates clumps.

> Nope. You're not understanding - catch someone, pass 'em. If you were fast
> enough to catch 'em, you should be fast enough to pass 'em. Don't slow down.

Guess you've never heard of on-ramps.

>>May you only encounter drivers like yourself, but slower. This means
>>you'll always be in clumps regardless of which lane you choose.

> Doesn't work that way. I drive so there is always room to pass - I don't
> _ever_ drive beside someone else unless there's absolultely no choice - IOW, my
> way ahead is blocked. Otherwise, everyone has the opportunity to go around on
> the right, which is what I would do to someone driving in that manner that I
> caught.

Again, where-you-drive isn't everywhere. I am glad traffic densities
where you drive are somewhere below that of 3am on a weekday in NE IL,
but your methods don't scale. Those who follow your driving methods here
cause all sorts of clumps all the time. I went through about a dozen
tonight where some LLB was doing your 'keeping left except to pass' and
caused a clump. There isn't room to go around your dumb asses on the
right all the time. Just the traffic volume alone allows one LLB to cause
a clump just by slowing the _RATE_ that other traffic can pass him.

In article >, Dave Head wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 11:28:52 -0600, (Brent
> P) wrote:
>
>>In article >, Dave Head wrote:

>>> Hell, nobody's dealing with the fact that a car at the 90th percentile is going
>>> to make 1800 lane changes over a long trip that causes him to encounter 2000
>>> other cars, as opposed to the fact that he'd only make 200 lane changes by
>>> simply staying left, either.

>>You're ducking the point. But your 30th percentile driver will get left
>>and stay left too driving the way you do.

> I can't help that. I wouldn't do it.

At least 1000s of other drivers would. And your teachings would only
increase their number.

> But if he does, I don't have the least
> qualm about passing his ass on the right, without hesitation.

How are you going to pass him on the right when there is either another
30th percentile driver there or solid stream of passing traffic?

>>Then he finds another 30th
>>precentile driver in the right lane and a clump is caused.

> Only if he slows down to match the other's speed. If he doesn't, he'll go
> right on by... unless...

What do you mean slows? they are both 30th percentile drivers.

> the driver in the right lane speeds up! I accumulate some fininte number of
> ducklings in _that_ manner, too. Those I scrape off at the next slower car in
> the right lane, tho.

Why should he 'speed up'? Just to be kind to you? You really drive in
some sort of fantasy world of your own creation.

>>> A lane change, or _any_ other overt act, carries a possibility of going wrong
>>> and resulting in an accident. Avoiding accidents is a matter of reducing risk
>>> wherever possilble. NOT hopping back and forth, back and forth is one of the
>>> ways...

>>Being on the road does that. Passing does that. To meet your
>>requirements, everyone must drive the same speed,

> Noooo.... not what I'm advocating at all, no matter how you want to twist it to
> suit your argument.

That is _exactly_ what automated roads do. That's why I figure you like
the idea of automated roads, because the automation enforces the
behaviors you argue for.

>>which I am sure you
>>want to pick, and be spread across all lanes. The only way to maintain
>>road capacity or reduce it as little as possible is cram everyone
>>together tightly.

> I'm against that, unless all vehicles are under automatic control, as in a
> train, or computerized individual vehicles. Those vehicles are not currently
> viable.

Automated control or not, it's the same result. Clumps. CLUMPS. To follow
your ideas generates clumps.

>>Which will happen anyway when everyone is limited to
>>the same speed naturally. You hate clumps but argue for the kind of
>>driving that creates clumps.

> Nope. You're not understanding - catch someone, pass 'em. If you were fast
> enough to catch 'em, you should be fast enough to pass 'em. Don't slow down.

Guess you've never heard of on-ramps.

>>May you only encounter drivers like yourself, but slower. This means
>>you'll always be in clumps regardless of which lane you choose.

> Doesn't work that way. I drive so there is always room to pass - I don't
> _ever_ drive beside someone else unless there's absolultely no choice - IOW, my
> way ahead is blocked. Otherwise, everyone has the opportunity to go around on
> the right, which is what I would do to someone driving in that manner that I
> caught.

Again, where-you-drive isn't everywhere. I am glad traffic densities
where you drive are somewhere below that of 3am on a weekday in NE IL,
but your methods don't scale. Those who follow your driving methods here
cause all sorts of clumps all the time. I went through about a dozen
tonight where some LLB was doing your 'keeping left except to pass' and
caused a clump. There isn't room to go around your dumb asses on the
right all the time. Just the traffic volume alone allows one LLB to cause
a clump just by slowing the _RATE_ that other traffic can pass him.

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 21:38:59 -0600, (Brent
P) wrote:

>In article >, Dave Head wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 11:23:25 -0600, (Brent
>> P) wrote:
>>
>>>In article >, Dave Head wrote:
>>>> Clumps happen when people drive the same speed.
>>>
>>>Which is what you are proposing. Everyone drive the same speed.
>>
>> I never said any such thing.
>
>To the record....
>
>-> From: Dave Head >
>-> Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
>-> Subject: Clump
>-> Message-ID: >
>->
>-> Every overt act, such as accelerating or decelerating,
>-> lane changing, etc. carries a potential to go wrong and cause an accident.
>-> That's why they should be minimized. If you can drive from 1 coast to the other
>-> without changing speed or changing lanes, you should. Other than that,
>-> minimize the changes you have to make.
>
>And I responded:
>
>And let me guess, it's you who gets to choose the speed everyone has to
>drive at to make that possible. Safety through rigid control of the
>population.
>
>Fact: Everybody will NOT drive the same speed.
>
>We can not change this fact. Thusly, your concept of a drive with minimal
>lane changing fails. How do we deal with this fact. Keep right except to
>pass. This insures that faster traffic can pass slower traffic with a
>minimum of spacial conflict.
>
>Your idea only works if you can make everyone drive the same speed,
>otherwise, you get the clumps you were complaining about. The clump is
>the direct result of your cruise on the left driving. May you continue to
>encounter people who drive like you, regardless of which lane you're in.
>
>
>>>> Catch somebody? PASS 'EM!
>
>>>Passing, lane changes, KRETP, etc you are arguing against.
>
>> If you're already driving in the left lane, you don't have to change lanes to
>> pass.
>
>How do you pass the left lane cruiser like you who is slower? Pass
>through solid matter?
>
>> There's going to be mostly slow people in the right lane - no matter what
>> either of us advocates - so staying left if your fast results in less lane
>> changes.
>
>Most slow people don't know they are slow so they go in the LEFT lane.
>Like you do. 1 out every 10 slow drivers I encounter is in the right
>lane.
>
>>>You hate clumps but argue for the things that cause clumps.
>
>> Nope - I argue for driving with a very large area around you being free of
>> cars. That is, if you catch somebody, pass 'em.
>
>You are arguing for clumps, you just don't understand traffic well enough
>to realize it.
>
>> I argue for _minimizing_ lane changes, not _eliminating_ them.
>
>I got a suggestion for you, when you merge into the right lane don't make
>any further lane changes. This way you eliminate all those lane changes
>to the left then back to the right when you exit.

Minimize != Eliminate.

And, if there's someone in the left lane going slower, I think I've said about
1000 times that I'd pass 'em on the right without hesitation.

One can do all the things one normally does, but try not to do 'em as much as
possible. That means, if you're at the 90th percentile speed, you would be in
theleft lane, 'cuz most of the slow traffic is in the right lane. If you're
somewhere that most of the slow traffic is in the left lane (like I-90 around
Madison, WI most times I drive it), you drive your 90th percentile in the right
lane, and let the slow people be slow in the left lane(s).

Kapish?
>

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 21:38:59 -0600, (Brent
P) wrote:

>In article >, Dave Head wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 11:23:25 -0600, (Brent
>> P) wrote:
>>
>>>In article >, Dave Head wrote:
>>>> Clumps happen when people drive the same speed.
>>>
>>>Which is what you are proposing. Everyone drive the same speed.
>>
>> I never said any such thing.
>
>To the record....
>
>-> From: Dave Head >
>-> Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
>-> Subject: Clump
>-> Message-ID: >
>->
>-> Every overt act, such as accelerating or decelerating,
>-> lane changing, etc. carries a potential to go wrong and cause an accident.
>-> That's why they should be minimized. If you can drive from 1 coast to the other
>-> without changing speed or changing lanes, you should. Other than that,
>-> minimize the changes you have to make.
>
>And I responded:
>
>And let me guess, it's you who gets to choose the speed everyone has to
>drive at to make that possible. Safety through rigid control of the
>population.
>
>Fact: Everybody will NOT drive the same speed.
>
>We can not change this fact. Thusly, your concept of a drive with minimal
>lane changing fails. How do we deal with this fact. Keep right except to
>pass. This insures that faster traffic can pass slower traffic with a
>minimum of spacial conflict.
>
>Your idea only works if you can make everyone drive the same speed,
>otherwise, you get the clumps you were complaining about. The clump is
>the direct result of your cruise on the left driving. May you continue to
>encounter people who drive like you, regardless of which lane you're in.
>
>
>>>> Catch somebody? PASS 'EM!
>
>>>Passing, lane changes, KRETP, etc you are arguing against.
>
>> If you're already driving in the left lane, you don't have to change lanes to
>> pass.
>
>How do you pass the left lane cruiser like you who is slower? Pass
>through solid matter?
>
>> There's going to be mostly slow people in the right lane - no matter what
>> either of us advocates - so staying left if your fast results in less lane
>> changes.
>
>Most slow people don't know they are slow so they go in the LEFT lane.
>Like you do. 1 out every 10 slow drivers I encounter is in the right
>lane.
>
>>>You hate clumps but argue for the things that cause clumps.
>
>> Nope - I argue for driving with a very large area around you being free of
>> cars. That is, if you catch somebody, pass 'em.
>
>You are arguing for clumps, you just don't understand traffic well enough
>to realize it.
>
>> I argue for _minimizing_ lane changes, not _eliminating_ them.
>
>I got a suggestion for you, when you merge into the right lane don't make
>any further lane changes. This way you eliminate all those lane changes
>to the left then back to the right when you exit.

Minimize != Eliminate.

And, if there's someone in the left lane going slower, I think I've said about
1000 times that I'd pass 'em on the right without hesitation.

One can do all the things one normally does, but try not to do 'em as much as
possible. That means, if you're at the 90th percentile speed, you would be in
theleft lane, 'cuz most of the slow traffic is in the right lane. If you're
somewhere that most of the slow traffic is in the left lane (like I-90 around
Madison, WI most times I drive it), you drive your 90th percentile in the right
lane, and let the slow people be slow in the left lane(s).

Kapish?
>

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 21:48:06 -0600, (Brent
P) wrote:

>In article >, Dave Head wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 11:28:52 -0600, (Brent
>> P) wrote:
>>
>>>In article >, Dave Head wrote:
>
>>>> Hell, nobody's dealing with the fact that a car at the 90th percentile is going
>>>> to make 1800 lane changes over a long trip that causes him to encounter 2000
>>>> other cars, as opposed to the fact that he'd only make 200 lane changes by
>>>> simply staying left, either.
>
>>>You're ducking the point. But your 30th percentile driver will get left
>>>and stay left too driving the way you do.
>
>> I can't help that. I wouldn't do it.
>
>At least 1000s of other drivers would. And your teachings would only
>increase their number.
>
>> But if he does, I don't have the least
>> qualm about passing his ass on the right, without hesitation.
>
>How are you going to pass him on the right when there is either another
>30th percentile driver there or solid stream of passing traffic?
>
>>>Then he finds another 30th
>>>precentile driver in the right lane and a clump is caused.
>
>> Only if he slows down to match the other's speed. If he doesn't, he'll go
>> right on by... unless...
>
>What do you mean slows? they are both 30th percentile drivers.

Think about it. If they are going the same speed, nobody's gonna catch anyone
so they can be beside them. The only way they could be beside each other is if
one entered the road at the exact same speed as the other, and did right beside
the other.

IOW, if 1 is 100 yards behind the other, and they're going the exact same
speed, they will be 100 yards apart when they get to the opposite coast 2500
miles later. That's how "exact same speed" works.

Otherwise, one has to be going faster than the other for anyone to catch
anyone, and if they do, then CONTINUE at that speed and just go right on by.


>> the driver in the right lane speeds up! I accumulate some fininte number of
>> ducklings in _that_ manner, too. Those I scrape off at the next slower car in
>> the right lane, tho.
>
>Why should he 'speed up'? Just to be kind to you? You really drive in
>some sort of fantasy world of your own creation.

You'll have to ask one of them why they speed up. I don't know why. I just
know that they do.

>>>> A lane change, or _any_ other overt act, carries a possibility of going wrong
>>>> and resulting in an accident. Avoiding accidents is a matter of reducing risk
>>>> wherever possilble. NOT hopping back and forth, back and forth is one of the
>>>> ways...
>
>>>Being on the road does that. Passing does that. To meet your
>>>requirements, everyone must drive the same speed,
>
>> Noooo.... not what I'm advocating at all, no matter how you want to twist it to
>> suit your argument.
>
>That is _exactly_ what automated roads do. That's why I figure you like
>the idea of automated roads, because the automation enforces the
>behaviors you argue for.

I would like automated roads because:

I can quit driving and read the paper, or sleep, or almost anything that's more
interesting that steering a car mile after mile, which is almost anything else
you'd care to name. Driving is boring. The challenge with driving is mostly
to remain alert.

I can't be ticketed for any sort of "driving error" - the computer's in
control.

The car can be made to go faster - the only reason that they can't right now is
that the human being is not capable of reliably operating the car safely at
that high of a speed - or at least that's the government line, in spite of the
German experience with the Autobahn. There would be no excuse not to operate
an automated highway at 100 mph.

>>>which I am sure you
>>>want to pick, and be spread across all lanes. The only way to maintain
>>>road capacity or reduce it as little as possible is cram everyone
>>>together tightly.
>
>> I'm against that, unless all vehicles are under automatic control, as in a
>> train, or computerized individual vehicles. Those vehicles are not currently
>> viable.
>
>Automated control or not, it's the same result. Clumps. CLUMPS. To follow
>your ideas generates clumps.

The only things really objectionable about clumps is that they tend to slow
traffic and that they put cars in close proximity so more will be involved in
an accident if it occurs.

Automated highways would allow neither slow clumps nor would they have "things
going wrong" for the reason of human failure. System failure, sure, but that
should be extremely rare.

On an automated highway, you could probably expect to be following the car
ahead at a distance of inches or a few feet, and have cars on either side
maintaining inches of clearance, and probably at 100 mph. Do I think its
feasible in our lifetimes? Nope, but that would still be the automated highway
ideal situation.

>>>Which will happen anyway when everyone is limited to
>>>the same speed naturally. You hate clumps but argue for the kind of
>>>driving that creates clumps.
>
>> Nope. You're not understanding - catch someone, pass 'em. If you were fast
>> enough to catch 'em, you should be fast enough to pass 'em. Don't slow down.
>
>Guess you've never heard of on-ramps.
>
>>>May you only encounter drivers like yourself, but slower. This means
>>>you'll always be in clumps regardless of which lane you choose.
>
>> Doesn't work that way. I drive so there is always room to pass - I don't
>> _ever_ drive beside someone else unless there's absolultely no choice - IOW, my
>> way ahead is blocked. Otherwise, everyone has the opportunity to go around on
>> the right, which is what I would do to someone driving in that manner that I
>> caught.
>
>Again, where-you-drive isn't everywhere. I am glad traffic densities
>where you drive are somewhere below that of 3am on a weekday in NE IL,
>but your methods don't scale. Those who follow your driving methods here
>cause all sorts of clumps all the time. I went through about a dozen
>tonight where some LLB was doing your 'keeping left except to pass' and
>caused a clump. There isn't room to go around your dumb asses on the
>right all the time.

There is when I do it.

>Just the traffic volume alone allows one LLB to cause
>a clump just by slowing the _RATE_ that other traffic can pass him.

Well, you got a problem with traffic volume, then. You're problem child pulls
over, it'll just be the next guy a car or 2 up that's the new problem.

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 21:48:06 -0600, (Brent
P) wrote:

>In article >, Dave Head wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 11:28:52 -0600, (Brent
>> P) wrote:
>>
>>>In article >, Dave Head wrote:
>
>>>> Hell, nobody's dealing with the fact that a car at the 90th percentile is going
>>>> to make 1800 lane changes over a long trip that causes him to encounter 2000
>>>> other cars, as opposed to the fact that he'd only make 200 lane changes by
>>>> simply staying left, either.
>
>>>You're ducking the point. But your 30th percentile driver will get left
>>>and stay left too driving the way you do.
>
>> I can't help that. I wouldn't do it.
>
>At least 1000s of other drivers would. And your teachings would only
>increase their number.
>
>> But if he does, I don't have the least
>> qualm about passing his ass on the right, without hesitation.
>
>How are you going to pass him on the right when there is either another
>30th percentile driver there or solid stream of passing traffic?
>
>>>Then he finds another 30th
>>>precentile driver in the right lane and a clump is caused.
>
>> Only if he slows down to match the other's speed. If he doesn't, he'll go
>> right on by... unless...
>
>What do you mean slows? they are both 30th percentile drivers.

Think about it. If they are going the same speed, nobody's gonna catch anyone
so they can be beside them. The only way they could be beside each other is if
one entered the road at the exact same speed as the other, and did right beside
the other.

IOW, if 1 is 100 yards behind the other, and they're going the exact same
speed, they will be 100 yards apart when they get to the opposite coast 2500
miles later. That's how "exact same speed" works.

Otherwise, one has to be going faster than the other for anyone to catch
anyone, and if they do, then CONTINUE at that speed and just go right on by.


>> the driver in the right lane speeds up! I accumulate some fininte number of
>> ducklings in _that_ manner, too. Those I scrape off at the next slower car in
>> the right lane, tho.
>
>Why should he 'speed up'? Just to be kind to you? You really drive in
>some sort of fantasy world of your own creation.

You'll have to ask one of them why they speed up. I don't know why. I just
know that they do.

>>>> A lane change, or _any_ other overt act, carries a possibility of going wrong
>>>> and resulting in an accident. Avoiding accidents is a matter of reducing risk
>>>> wherever possilble. NOT hopping back and forth, back and forth is one of the
>>>> ways...
>
>>>Being on the road does that. Passing does that. To meet your
>>>requirements, everyone must drive the same speed,
>
>> Noooo.... not what I'm advocating at all, no matter how you want to twist it to
>> suit your argument.
>
>That is _exactly_ what automated roads do. That's why I figure you like
>the idea of automated roads, because the automation enforces the
>behaviors you argue for.

I would like automated roads because:

I can quit driving and read the paper, or sleep, or almost anything that's more
interesting that steering a car mile after mile, which is almost anything else
you'd care to name. Driving is boring. The challenge with driving is mostly
to remain alert.

I can't be ticketed for any sort of "driving error" - the computer's in
control.

The car can be made to go faster - the only reason that they can't right now is
that the human being is not capable of reliably operating the car safely at
that high of a speed - or at least that's the government line, in spite of the
German experience with the Autobahn. There would be no excuse not to operate
an automated highway at 100 mph.

>>>which I am sure you
>>>want to pick, and be spread across all lanes. The only way to maintain
>>>road capacity or reduce it as little as possible is cram everyone
>>>together tightly.
>
>> I'm against that, unless all vehicles are under automatic control, as in a
>> train, or computerized individual vehicles. Those vehicles are not currently
>> viable.
>
>Automated control or not, it's the same result. Clumps. CLUMPS. To follow
>your ideas generates clumps.

The only things really objectionable about clumps is that they tend to slow
traffic and that they put cars in close proximity so more will be involved in
an accident if it occurs.

Automated highways would allow neither slow clumps nor would they have "things
going wrong" for the reason of human failure. System failure, sure, but that
should be extremely rare.

On an automated highway, you could probably expect to be following the car
ahead at a distance of inches or a few feet, and have cars on either side
maintaining inches of clearance, and probably at 100 mph. Do I think its
feasible in our lifetimes? Nope, but that would still be the automated highway
ideal situation.

>>>Which will happen anyway when everyone is limited to
>>>the same speed naturally. You hate clumps but argue for the kind of
>>>driving that creates clumps.
>
>> Nope. You're not understanding - catch someone, pass 'em. If you were fast
>> enough to catch 'em, you should be fast enough to pass 'em. Don't slow down.
>
>Guess you've never heard of on-ramps.
>
>>>May you only encounter drivers like yourself, but slower. This means
>>>you'll always be in clumps regardless of which lane you choose.
>
>> Doesn't work that way. I drive so there is always room to pass - I don't
>> _ever_ drive beside someone else unless there's absolultely no choice - IOW, my
>> way ahead is blocked. Otherwise, everyone has the opportunity to go around on
>> the right, which is what I would do to someone driving in that manner that I
>> caught.
>
>Again, where-you-drive isn't everywhere. I am glad traffic densities
>where you drive are somewhere below that of 3am on a weekday in NE IL,
>but your methods don't scale. Those who follow your driving methods here
>cause all sorts of clumps all the time. I went through about a dozen
>tonight where some LLB was doing your 'keeping left except to pass' and
>caused a clump. There isn't room to go around your dumb asses on the
>right all the time.

There is when I do it.

>Just the traffic volume alone allows one LLB to cause
>a clump just by slowing the _RATE_ that other traffic can pass him.

Well, you got a problem with traffic volume, then. You're problem child pulls
over, it'll just be the next guy a car or 2 up that's the new problem.

On 17 Jan 2005 00:47:52 GMT, Jim Yanik .> wrote:

>Dave Head > wrote in
:
>
>> On 15 Jan 2005 03:33:18 GMT, Jim Yanik .> wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>>
>> Still sidestepped the numbers
>>
>>
>
>"your" "numbers".(fictional,I suspect)

What? That a car that is doing the 90th percentile speed and staying left will
only have to change lanes 200 times when encountering 2000 cars, as opposed to
having to change lanes 1800 times if he stayed right and passed left? I think
it's rather obviously in the definition of "90th percentile".

>Still just your rationalization for not following law

Oh, yet another law to break? Big whoop - anyone that simply _catches_ me is
breaking the law by speeding. Add yet another law that gets broken, by all
parties involved? So what...

>and safe driving
>practices.

Its plenty safe. I've been doing it for about 1.5 million miles and haven't
got my name into an accident report yet...

>Even the Euros believe in KRETP.

"Even?"