KRETP Extremist Increase Highway Danger

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 11:43:46 -0800, Scott en Aztlán
> wrote:

>On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 19:16:40 GMT,
>(Brent P) wrote:
>
>>In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>>> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 23:38:35 GMT, Dave Head > wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>Saw a darling of this group doing his thing last night.
>>>>>
>>>>>Ducklings are no more the "darlings" of this group than you are, Dave.
>>>>
>>>>Aw c'mon - ya gotta love 'em - ya want _me_ to get screwed over by 'em on a
>>>>continuous basis.
>>>
>>> I believe it was Brent who wished that particular curse upon you.
>>
>>I wished him to only encounter drivers like himself, but slower.
>
>Yes, that's the curse I was thinking of. I hope it comes to pass (pun
>intended).

Wouldn't bother me a bit. I encounter people driving like me every day. If
you think I'm the only one around here that drives left, you're very mistaken.
And... I just pass 'em on the right.

DPH

On 18 Dec 2004 16:56:55 GMT, Jim Yanik .> wrote:

>Dave Head > wrote in
:
>
>
>
>>
>> You'll care if he has a gun, now, won't you? You don't have anything
>> to worry about from the people with gun permits - they're the good
>> guys - its the real criminals that will roll up alongside you and put
>> a bullet in your brain afterward. Its a real good idea not to
>> intentionally **** off anyone - we all do it without trying, way too
>> much, as it is...
>
>Once again,I pay atention to what's around me,and would be suspicious of
>any car that came alongside after I "****ed them off",especially if they
>have a gun in their hand.

Yeah. Great. You're suspicious. That and 25 cents will get you a cup of
coffee, and both will be equally effective at comforting your loved ones at
your funeral after the criminal puts a bullet in your brain.

>BTW,I have guns,too.

Yeah, you might get lucky and shoot first... and get to defend yourself in
court, and possibly lose your self defense case and go to jail for 20 - life.
All that risk for something that could be prevented by just sitting in the left
lane and letting them go around on the right, fueled by some anacronistic
notion that things would be better if the laws that were repealed some 35 years
ago would solve everything.

DPH

On 18 Dec 2004 16:56:55 GMT, Jim Yanik .> wrote:

>Dave Head > wrote in
:
>
>
>
>>
>> You'll care if he has a gun, now, won't you? You don't have anything
>> to worry about from the people with gun permits - they're the good
>> guys - its the real criminals that will roll up alongside you and put
>> a bullet in your brain afterward. Its a real good idea not to
>> intentionally **** off anyone - we all do it without trying, way too
>> much, as it is...
>
>Once again,I pay atention to what's around me,and would be suspicious of
>any car that came alongside after I "****ed them off",especially if they
>have a gun in their hand.

Yeah. Great. You're suspicious. That and 25 cents will get you a cup of
coffee, and both will be equally effective at comforting your loved ones at
your funeral after the criminal puts a bullet in your brain.

>BTW,I have guns,too.

Yeah, you might get lucky and shoot first... and get to defend yourself in
court, and possibly lose your self defense case and go to jail for 20 - life.
All that risk for something that could be prevented by just sitting in the left
lane and letting them go around on the right, fueled by some anacronistic
notion that things would be better if the laws that were repealed some 35 years
ago would solve everything.

DPH

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 11:54:52 -0800, Scott en Aztlán
> wrote:

>On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 10:08:18 GMT, Dave Head > wrote:
>
>>>Oh come on. How is accelerating from 62 to 66 mph considered "serious"
>>>acceleration in your mind? *Serious* acceleration, in my mind, would be
>>>accelerating from 62 mph to 92 mph.
>>
>>Its _not_ 62 to 66. If you do that, the duckling comes right along with you.
>
>Not if you do it correctly.
>
>>You have to hit the gas big-time.
>
>So what? Why are you afraid to do that?

Haven't you been paying attention? SR3 east of Fredericksburg is one of the
most heavily patrolled pieces of road I've ever seen. They rival the 20 or so
cop cars I used to see between Indy and NW Ohio on trips I used to take back
home, during the 55 nonsense, with the Ohio State Patrol raising revenue there.
1 cop car per 10 miles. Its even worse than that on rt 3 sometimes - its not
hard to encounter 3 in about 12 miles of rural driving - there's 2 counties
plus the Virginia State Police feeding this frenzy.

>>That will get you moving fast enough and
>>quickly enough to discourage the duckling. It's probably about 75 mph, which
>>in Virginia is a really big ticket, "reckless driving", and a really big fine,
>>a 6 point license ding, and maybe jail time, depending on the county in
>>Virginia you do it in.
>
>So you do it *carefully*, making sure there are no cops within range,

That is absolutely impossible on this road. It is neither straight nor flat.
You're always dropping over a hill or going around a corner. There's myrids of
places for the cops to hide, in addition to running moving radar from the other
lane.

>and only long enough to shake the duckling and complete your pass,
>then you slow back down to an acceptable speed. I do that probably 100
>times a day.

As someone with a _lot_ of experience getting speeding tickets, I have noted
that the radars, without exception, have those two speed alarm thumbwheels set
to a speed 10 over the limit. If I'm at 62, then I get get to, at most, 64,
without triggering them. Yeah, _sometimes_ I'll take a chance and go faster,
but I know that if I do that routinely, it's going to cost me $100. I'd just
rather not do that to accommodate the yahoos that come up and sit on my left
rear. They can jolly well go around on the right.

>
>>>> to ensure that the duckling doesn't tag along, and in order to not cut off the
>>>> duckling too abruptly,
>>>
>>>You're not going to cut off the duckling abruptly if you're moving
>>>faster than him.
>>
>>You're cutting off the duckling if you move in front of him and leave less than
>>2 seconds of following distance between you and him.
>
>What a ridiculous definition. Your disingenuity knows no bounds.

2 seconds is the accepted safe following distance, which you would know if you
ever had drivers training. Less than that, you risk not being able to stop, or
more specifically getting hit by the guy you just cut off if you find you have
to stop suddenly. Likewise, crawling up the rear of the guy in front of you
and getting closer than 2 seconds is a risk.
>
>>You have to be prepared
>>for things to go totally to **** for some reason just as soon as you do that
>>jump left.
>
>By that same logic, you also have to be prepared in case the sun
>should go nova while you are executing your pass.

So, you're not a defensive driver. And you want _me_ to join you? You have a
long wait for that...

>>>Slower cars in the right lane do not appear out of thin air. You have
>>>plenty of time to speed up and pass without really accelerating or
>>>cuttong off anyone.
>>
>>No, no, no, no, no. Its like this. You're sitting there, waiting for the car
>>in the left lane to approach and pass. There's a car up front, for sure, and
>>you know that the car that's catching you in the left lane should be by you by
>>the time you reach it. But no, he slows down on your left rear and sits there.
>
>I almost never "sit there" waiting for a car to approach and pass if
>there is a slower car ahead of me. I speed up and pass the slower car
>and return to the right lane BEFORE the faster traffic in the left
>lane has a chance to go duckling on me. Of course, I accelerate
>sufficiently so that the faster traffic never has to slow down for me.

Yeah, right - I got about 2 more mph I can go without triggering the "set to 10
over" radar units on the hoarde of cop cars on this particular road. "Speeding
up to pass" is a non-solution for me, at least doing it on a routine basis.

>This is called defensive driving. PREVENTING a dangerous situation
>from arising is always much easier than trying to figure a way out of
>one that you're already caught up in.

I prevent dangerous sitautions from occuring by simply driving in the left
lane. People go around on the right, no problem. Nobody has to speed up to
become radar fodder, nobody has to _abruptly_ switch lanes or cut off other
cars to do it.

I still think my way is best in terms of safety, and its just too bad it
doesn't meet with some other people's anacronistic ideas they hold while
attempting to obey laws that were largely repealed about 35 years ago in most
places.

DPH

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 11:54:52 -0800, Scott en Aztlán
> wrote:

>On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 10:08:18 GMT, Dave Head > wrote:
>
>>>Oh come on. How is accelerating from 62 to 66 mph considered "serious"
>>>acceleration in your mind? *Serious* acceleration, in my mind, would be
>>>accelerating from 62 mph to 92 mph.
>>
>>Its _not_ 62 to 66. If you do that, the duckling comes right along with you.
>
>Not if you do it correctly.
>
>>You have to hit the gas big-time.
>
>So what? Why are you afraid to do that?

Haven't you been paying attention? SR3 east of Fredericksburg is one of the
most heavily patrolled pieces of road I've ever seen. They rival the 20 or so
cop cars I used to see between Indy and NW Ohio on trips I used to take back
home, during the 55 nonsense, with the Ohio State Patrol raising revenue there.
1 cop car per 10 miles. Its even worse than that on rt 3 sometimes - its not
hard to encounter 3 in about 12 miles of rural driving - there's 2 counties
plus the Virginia State Police feeding this frenzy.

>>That will get you moving fast enough and
>>quickly enough to discourage the duckling. It's probably about 75 mph, which
>>in Virginia is a really big ticket, "reckless driving", and a really big fine,
>>a 6 point license ding, and maybe jail time, depending on the county in
>>Virginia you do it in.
>
>So you do it *carefully*, making sure there are no cops within range,

That is absolutely impossible on this road. It is neither straight nor flat.
You're always dropping over a hill or going around a corner. There's myrids of
places for the cops to hide, in addition to running moving radar from the other
lane.

>and only long enough to shake the duckling and complete your pass,
>then you slow back down to an acceptable speed. I do that probably 100
>times a day.

As someone with a _lot_ of experience getting speeding tickets, I have noted
that the radars, without exception, have those two speed alarm thumbwheels set
to a speed 10 over the limit. If I'm at 62, then I get get to, at most, 64,
without triggering them. Yeah, _sometimes_ I'll take a chance and go faster,
but I know that if I do that routinely, it's going to cost me $100. I'd just
rather not do that to accommodate the yahoos that come up and sit on my left
rear. They can jolly well go around on the right.

>
>>>> to ensure that the duckling doesn't tag along, and in order to not cut off the
>>>> duckling too abruptly,
>>>
>>>You're not going to cut off the duckling abruptly if you're moving
>>>faster than him.
>>
>>You're cutting off the duckling if you move in front of him and leave less than
>>2 seconds of following distance between you and him.
>
>What a ridiculous definition. Your disingenuity knows no bounds.

2 seconds is the accepted safe following distance, which you would know if you
ever had drivers training. Less than that, you risk not being able to stop, or
more specifically getting hit by the guy you just cut off if you find you have
to stop suddenly. Likewise, crawling up the rear of the guy in front of you
and getting closer than 2 seconds is a risk.
>
>>You have to be prepared
>>for things to go totally to **** for some reason just as soon as you do that
>>jump left.
>
>By that same logic, you also have to be prepared in case the sun
>should go nova while you are executing your pass.

So, you're not a defensive driver. And you want _me_ to join you? You have a
long wait for that...

>>>Slower cars in the right lane do not appear out of thin air. You have
>>>plenty of time to speed up and pass without really accelerating or
>>>cuttong off anyone.
>>
>>No, no, no, no, no. Its like this. You're sitting there, waiting for the car
>>in the left lane to approach and pass. There's a car up front, for sure, and
>>you know that the car that's catching you in the left lane should be by you by
>>the time you reach it. But no, he slows down on your left rear and sits there.
>
>I almost never "sit there" waiting for a car to approach and pass if
>there is a slower car ahead of me. I speed up and pass the slower car
>and return to the right lane BEFORE the faster traffic in the left
>lane has a chance to go duckling on me. Of course, I accelerate
>sufficiently so that the faster traffic never has to slow down for me.

Yeah, right - I got about 2 more mph I can go without triggering the "set to 10
over" radar units on the hoarde of cop cars on this particular road. "Speeding
up to pass" is a non-solution for me, at least doing it on a routine basis.

>This is called defensive driving. PREVENTING a dangerous situation
>from arising is always much easier than trying to figure a way out of
>one that you're already caught up in.

I prevent dangerous sitautions from occuring by simply driving in the left
lane. People go around on the right, no problem. Nobody has to speed up to
become radar fodder, nobody has to _abruptly_ switch lanes or cut off other
cars to do it.

I still think my way is best in terms of safety, and its just too bad it
doesn't meet with some other people's anacronistic ideas they hold while
attempting to obey laws that were largely repealed about 35 years ago in most
places.

DPH

On 18 Dec 2004 16:54:33 GMT, Jim Yanik .> wrote:

>Arif Khokar > wrote in
:
>
>> Dave Head wrote:
>>
>>> The prescription was for me to hit the gas and go around the car in
>>> front of me when I'm in the right lane and there's a LLB/DUCKLING on
>>> my left rear. Don't remember who said it - but it was said. That
>>> makes for a serious acceleration
>>
>> Oh come on. How is accelerating from 62 to 66 mph considered
>> "serious" acceleration in your mind? *Serious* acceleration, in my
>> mind, would be accelerating from 62 mph to 92 mph.
>>
>>> to ensure that the duckling doesn't tag along, and in order to not
>>> cut off the duckling too abruptly,
>>
>> You're not going to cut off the duckling abruptly if you're moving
>> faster than him.
>
>And who cares if I do "cut him off"?

You may, if he rolls up and puts a bullet in your brain because of it. There's
real criminals out there that take personal offense to just about anything they
can. But you go right ahead...

>I pay attention and anticipate when I need to pass/change lanes well ahead
>of time,so I don't have "ducklings" hanging on my rear quadrants.

And I just stay left, and let them pass on the right, which they do without so
much as a horn toot, finger wave, or even a dirty look.

I think I'm ****ing off a lot less people than you are...

DPH

On 18 Dec 2004 16:54:33 GMT, Jim Yanik .> wrote:

>Arif Khokar > wrote in
:
>
>> Dave Head wrote:
>>
>>> The prescription was for me to hit the gas and go around the car in
>>> front of me when I'm in the right lane and there's a LLB/DUCKLING on
>>> my left rear. Don't remember who said it - but it was said. That
>>> makes for a serious acceleration
>>
>> Oh come on. How is accelerating from 62 to 66 mph considered
>> "serious" acceleration in your mind? *Serious* acceleration, in my
>> mind, would be accelerating from 62 mph to 92 mph.
>>
>>> to ensure that the duckling doesn't tag along, and in order to not
>>> cut off the duckling too abruptly,
>>
>> You're not going to cut off the duckling abruptly if you're moving
>> faster than him.
>
>And who cares if I do "cut him off"?

You may, if he rolls up and puts a bullet in your brain because of it. There's
real criminals out there that take personal offense to just about anything they
can. But you go right ahead...

>I pay attention and anticipate when I need to pass/change lanes well ahead
>of time,so I don't have "ducklings" hanging on my rear quadrants.

And I just stay left, and let them pass on the right, which they do without so
much as a horn toot, finger wave, or even a dirty look.

I think I'm ****ing off a lot less people than you are...

DPH

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 14:49:06 GMT, Dave Head > wrote:

>On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 08:52:01 -0700, Big Bill > wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 09:45:48 GMT, Dave Head > wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 08:56:25 GMT, Arif Khokar > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Dave Head wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> OK, you're so smart, you tell me how _you_ would handle some guy in the left
>>>>> lane that settles in on your left bumper, and a slower car is dead ahead. You
>>>>> do that...
>>>>
>>>>Simple, I just speed up, move over to the left, pass the slower car, and
>>>>then return to the right lane.
>>>
>>>Uh huh. Well, when you "speed up", the damn duckling probably will too. If he
>>>does, you're screwed... unless... you do it really abruptly. If you do it
>>>abruptly, starting from the mid 60's mph like I'm running, that means you're
>>>doing about 75 mph. That's good for a really big ticket with a really big
>>>fine. Some counties in Virginia will actually throw you in jail. The ones
>>>that don't, a 20-over ticket is still "reckless driving" and a 6-point license
>>>offense. Now _you_ may not be in Virginia, but _I AM_, so I am not using this
>>>method...
>>>
>>>Plus, even if you do get away with it, the manuever has you doing maybe 75 mph
>>>pretty damn close to the car ahead before you snap left, cut off the duck, and
>>>go around. Not a good move, longevity-wise, if the car ahead finds one of
>>>about 1000 reasons they come up with to hit the brakes. They're either
>>>deciding to turn off with a right turn, and practically stopping in the road
>>>first to do it, or braking for some critter, or braking 'cuz they see you and
>>>get scared. Some brake just 'cuz they haven't done it for a while. Of course
>>>it's not _likely_ they're gonna brake, but you have to drive like its gonna
>>>happen, and have a plan in case it does, otherwise you're up the creek and
>>>unprepared for a dangerous situation.
>>>
>>>>Another option is to slow down and fall in behind him while he passes
>>>>the slower car.
>>>
>>>Drop back 10 and think about that. HE'S A DUCKLING. He's NOT GONNA pass the
>>>slower car, he's gonna slow down and pace it, just like he did when he got to
>>>you! And then, you're stuck.
>>>
>>>Dave Head
>>
>>Not really.
>>If he does slow down to match my speed, then there's more room to pass
>>the car in front, and I don't need to be as abrupt.
>
>You're traveling along in the right lane and a duckling comes up and slows down
>on your left rear and sits. That has no effect at all on the room to pass the
>car in front of you. If you were 100 yards behind the car in front of you that
>you're catching slowly, then you're still gonna be 100 yards behind it and
>closing that space when you discover you're ability to change lanes is blocked.
>
>DPH

Why pick on a hundred yards?
Why does a hundred yards somehow affect how I pass moreso than 99
yards or 200 yards?
Why do you attract so many ducklings?

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

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 14:49:06 GMT, Dave Head > wrote:

>On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 08:52:01 -0700, Big Bill > wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 09:45:48 GMT, Dave Head > wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 08:56:25 GMT, Arif Khokar > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Dave Head wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> OK, you're so smart, you tell me how _you_ would handle some guy in the left
>>>>> lane that settles in on your left bumper, and a slower car is dead ahead. You
>>>>> do that...
>>>>
>>>>Simple, I just speed up, move over to the left, pass the slower car, and
>>>>then return to the right lane.
>>>
>>>Uh huh. Well, when you "speed up", the damn duckling probably will too. If he
>>>does, you're screwed... unless... you do it really abruptly. If you do it
>>>abruptly, starting from the mid 60's mph like I'm running, that means you're
>>>doing about 75 mph. That's good for a really big ticket with a really big
>>>fine. Some counties in Virginia will actually throw you in jail. The ones
>>>that don't, a 20-over ticket is still "reckless driving" and a 6-point license
>>>offense. Now _you_ may not be in Virginia, but _I AM_, so I am not using this
>>>method...
>>>
>>>Plus, even if you do get away with it, the manuever has you doing maybe 75 mph
>>>pretty damn close to the car ahead before you snap left, cut off the duck, and
>>>go around. Not a good move, longevity-wise, if the car ahead finds one of
>>>about 1000 reasons they come up with to hit the brakes. They're either
>>>deciding to turn off with a right turn, and practically stopping in the road
>>>first to do it, or braking for some critter, or braking 'cuz they see you and
>>>get scared. Some brake just 'cuz they haven't done it for a while. Of course
>>>it's not _likely_ they're gonna brake, but you have to drive like its gonna
>>>happen, and have a plan in case it does, otherwise you're up the creek and
>>>unprepared for a dangerous situation.
>>>
>>>>Another option is to slow down and fall in behind him while he passes
>>>>the slower car.
>>>
>>>Drop back 10 and think about that. HE'S A DUCKLING. He's NOT GONNA pass the
>>>slower car, he's gonna slow down and pace it, just like he did when he got to
>>>you! And then, you're stuck.
>>>
>>>Dave Head
>>
>>Not really.
>>If he does slow down to match my speed, then there's more room to pass
>>the car in front, and I don't need to be as abrupt.
>
>You're traveling along in the right lane and a duckling comes up and slows down
>on your left rear and sits. That has no effect at all on the room to pass the
>car in front of you. If you were 100 yards behind the car in front of you that
>you're catching slowly, then you're still gonna be 100 yards behind it and
>closing that space when you discover you're ability to change lanes is blocked.
>
>DPH

Why pick on a hundred yards?
Why does a hundred yards somehow affect how I pass moreso than 99
yards or 200 yards?
Why do you attract so many ducklings?

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

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 15:06:07 GMT, Dave Head > wrote:

>On 18 Dec 2004 16:56:55 GMT, Jim Yanik .> wrote:
>
>>Dave Head > wrote in
m:
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> You'll care if he has a gun, now, won't you? You don't have anything
>>> to worry about from the people with gun permits - they're the good
>>> guys - its the real criminals that will roll up alongside you and put
>>> a bullet in your brain afterward. Its a real good idea not to
>>> intentionally **** off anyone - we all do it without trying, way too
>>> much, as it is...
>>
>>Once again,I pay atention to what's around me,and would be suspicious of
>>any car that came alongside after I "****ed them off",especially if they
>>have a gun in their hand.
>
>Yeah. Great. You're suspicious. That and 25 cents will get you a cup of
>coffee, and both will be equally effective at comforting your loved ones at
>your funeral after the criminal puts a bullet in your brain.

I think I see your problem...
You're stuck in the 50's.
Coffee costs much more than that now. :-)
>
>>BTW,I have guns,too.
>
>Yeah, you might get lucky and shoot first... and get to defend yourself in
>court, and possibly lose your self defense case and go to jail for 20 - life.
>All that risk for something that could be prevented by just sitting in the left
>lane and letting them go around on the right, fueled by some anacronistic
>notion that things would be better if the laws that were repealed some 35 years
>ago would solve everything.
>
>DPH

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