Merge impaired slowpokes

"Anthony Giorgianni" >
wrote in
:

>
> "Jim Yanik" .> wrote in message
> .. .
>
>> I'm not "controlling" anyone.Just not altering my path to facilitate
>> their bad behavior.Maybe they learn from it,probably not.
>
>>
> After thinking about this, I've decided to come back to this thread
> and do something that, as far as I know, has never been done by anyone
> before on rec.autos.driving: Agree that perhaps you're all changing my
> mind!
>
> I'm thinking this through... let me see: If it's okay for YOU not to
> facilitate what you view as bad behavior on the road, we ALL must have
> the same right, correct? I mean if another motorist does something
> that I feel is unsafe or wrong, it should be okay for me not to enable
> this behavior. In fact, if I understand you correctly, I could go so
> far as to say that I have an OBLIGATION not to accommodate the
> motorist for the sake of me and all other drivers. So I'm just
> thinking here.....
>
> Normally, if one of the 85th percentilers comes up behind me, I pull
> to the right to let them by.

Well,first you are not following the KRETP or "slower traffic keep
right"rule.
You should already be over to the right.

> But based on what you've told me, I.'m
> now realizing that I have only been enabling what I think is
> dangerous, anti-social and certainly illegal behavior. So whether or
> not you happen to agree with my view on the 85th percentile, I think
> you will all applaud my newly-found realization that it's my
> obligation NOT to accommodate or tolerate that driver, especially if
> it means pulling into a slower moving right lane. Furthermore, why
> should I inconvenience myself, add to my trip time by accommodating
> someone who feels it's okay to break the law when I don't? If I'm
> going the speed limit, altering my path to facilitate their bad
> behavior is only rewarding them. If, on the other hand, I stay in the
> left lane and perhaps even slow down, I'll be sending a message to the
> scofflaw that his behavior is unacceptable. Having my two-ton slab of
> an SUV slowing down in front of him, maybe even coming to a complete
> stop, may teach him to think twice the next time!!! Hmmmm... I think I
> might even be able to argue here that it would be especially
> appropriate not to enable a speeder because he's violating the law,
> while a slow merger is not. You know what? I think this vigilante
> driving instruction could be just the thing I've been looking for.
> HEY! Maybe you 85th percentilers could try this with the 95th
> percentilers; and you 95th percentilers could try it with the 00th
> percentilers!!!!!!!!! We might actually change some driving behavior
> in this country and get credit for fulfilling our civic obligations
> ALL AT THE SAME TIME!!! I might even
> make myself a badge for this.

Seems to me you lack common sense.You can't differentiate between dangerous
driving and driving that does not affect anyone.There's no evidence
speeding by itself causes and hazard to others on the highway,if they drive
in the accepted manner.However,merging into traffic at much lower speeds
(sloth merging)than the traffic IS known to be a hazard.
>
> Let me see if there is any flaw in my thinking: You certainly can't
> argue that this no-enable right or obligation is granted only to some
> motorists and not to others or only in connection with slow poking as
> opposed to other driving behaviors that we vigilante driving
> instructors deem as unacceptable, right? I mean is speeding somehow
> exempt from this rule, no matter how fast?

Well,how does driving at speed work on Germany's Autobahn?

>Are any other behaviors
> exempt - maybe carrying dogs in the back of pickup trucks or playing a
> tambourine while driving? No, that doesn't make sense.

YOU don't seem to be making any sense.

>It would seem
> only reasonable to expect that we're not all going to agree on what
> constitutes proper driving (some of you may approve of driving the
> 95th percentile or backwards or even upsidedown, for example.). So I
> would think that we'd all be justified imposing those lessons (or
> un-accommodations) that we think are appropriate from our particular
> point of view. WOW!! WOW!
>
> Thinking this through, I now realize that YOU GUYS ARE RIGHT!!!!! You
> have totally changed my thinking on this!!!!!! Slowing down (or at
> least not enabling) speeders is therefore not only something I can
> rightfully do, it is my OBLIGATION!!!!!!! You know what? I can't wait
> to run my first class. To be brutally honest, this already is giving
> me an erection!! Yee-ha! I bet this is even going to make me better in
> bed ... a nice side benefit!
>
> Thank you so much for helping me see that I have a right and
> obligation not to enable YOU if I don't agree with how you are
> driving. Excellent! Excellent! Excellent!
>
> Regards and thank you again from your newest vigilante driving
> instructor/un-accommodater.
>
> Anthony Giorgianni
>
>
>
>



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

(Timothy J. Lee) wrote in
:

> In article <uEFAd.302077$HA.87063@attbi_s01>,
> Brent P > wrote:
>>The first step to making driving in the USA much more pleasant and much
>>more efficent is to stop the social tolerance of idiotic sloth
>>driving.
>
> 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).

And having to make an emergency lane change is an additional risk in
itself.Which could contribute to collisions.


> Most people don't want to crash or greatly increase
> the risk of crashing (although many, like the slow mergers themselves,
> are too clueless to realize what actions increase the risk of crashing).
> And crashing into the rear end of the slow merger will likely be deemed
> your fault for legal and insurance purposes.
>
> So while it may be desirable to discourage behavior like slow merging,
> it is often not possible to do so without greatly increasing the risk
> to yourself.
>



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

(Timothy J. Lee) wrote in
:

> In article <uEFAd.302077$HA.87063@attbi_s01>,
> Brent P > wrote:
>>The first step to making driving in the USA much more pleasant and much
>>more efficent is to stop the social tolerance of idiotic sloth
>>driving.
>
> 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).

And having to make an emergency lane change is an additional risk in
itself.Which could contribute to collisions.


> Most people don't want to crash or greatly increase
> the risk of crashing (although many, like the slow mergers themselves,
> are too clueless to realize what actions increase the risk of crashing).
> And crashing into the rear end of the slow merger will likely be deemed
> your fault for legal and insurance purposes.
>
> So while it may be desirable to discourage behavior like slow merging,
> it is often not possible to do so without greatly increasing the risk
> to yourself.
>



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

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.

> Most people don't want to crash or greatly increase
> the risk of crashing (although many, like the slow mergers themselves,
> are too clueless to realize what actions increase the risk of crashing).
> And crashing into the rear end of the slow merger will likely be deemed
> your fault for legal and insurance purposes.

I'll wager that coming to a stop or close to it on the interstate is
considerably more dangerous than forcing a sloth merger to merge behind
you. I'd rather the sloth be one that gets rear ended by the semi, not me.

> So while it may be desirable to discourage behavior like slow merging,
> it is often not possible to do so without greatly increasing the risk
> to yourself.

I see the greater risk is letting the sloth merger in. You slow to 20-30mph
in an 75mph flow to let in a sloth merger. You get rear-ended, the sloth
merger continues on his merry way. How have you benefited?

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.

> Most people don't want to crash or greatly increase
> the risk of crashing (although many, like the slow mergers themselves,
> are too clueless to realize what actions increase the risk of crashing).
> And crashing into the rear end of the slow merger will likely be deemed
> your fault for legal and insurance purposes.

I'll wager that coming to a stop or close to it on the interstate is
considerably more dangerous than forcing a sloth merger to merge behind
you. I'd rather the sloth be one that gets rear ended by the semi, not me.

> So while it may be desirable to discourage behavior like slow merging,
> it is often not possible to do so without greatly increasing the risk
> to yourself.

I see the greater risk is letting the sloth merger in. You slow to 20-30mph
in an 75mph flow to let in a sloth merger. You get rear-ended, the sloth
merger continues on his merry way. How have you benefited?

Timothy J. Lee wrote:

[teaching sloth mergers to merge at speed or crash]
> 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

I usually try to see how much the sloth merger is willing to sideswipe
me. I only do this when I have no cars to my left just in case he calls
my bluff. Most of the time they fall in behind me. Other times,
believe it or not, they actually accelerate to my speed and get ahead of me.

Timothy J. Lee wrote:

[teaching sloth mergers to merge at speed or crash]
> 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

I usually try to see how much the sloth merger is willing to sideswipe
me. I only do this when I have no cars to my left just in case he calls
my bluff. Most of the time they fall in behind me. Other times,
believe it or not, they actually accelerate to my speed and get ahead of me.

In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:

> And having to make an emergency lane change is an additional risk in
> itself.Which could contribute to collisions.

I've always had time to signal and check mirrors... so I wouldn't call
them emergency lane changes, just forced to take action. (yes I make
sure I have an out before hand)

In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:

> And having to make an emergency lane change is an additional risk in
> itself.Which could contribute to collisions.

I've always had time to signal and check mirrors... so I wouldn't call
them emergency lane changes, just forced to take action. (yes I make
sure I have an out before hand)

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>