More On Left Lane Driving

In article >, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
> "Brent P" > wrote in message

>> How do you deal with this?
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------->
>> ++] [YOU] [LLB]
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------->
>> +] [+++] [===] [SEMI-TRAILER] [===]
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------->
>> [+++] [===] [===] [SEMI-TRAILER]
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------->
>>
>> Assume SL = 55mph
>>
>> Right lane [===] and [SEMI-TRAILER] are doing 60mph
>> Middle lane [===] and [SEMI-TRAILER] are doing 66mph
>> [YOU] are doing 62 mph. The LLB is doing 60mph.
>> [+++] and others coming up to this clog are doing 68mph or more.
>>
> [snip...]

> Simply put, [+++] and others coming up in the left lane need to ensure they
> are following at 2 to 3 seconds back from [YOU], who already has more than a
> reasonable following distance away from [LLB]. In the left lane, [+++] is
> already too close! So, if that means slowing down, then they need to slow
> down. Note that this also assumes that [LLB] will not merge left even though
> they are an LLB.

Maybe the LLB should keep right except to pass so that he isn't causing
traffic to clump up behind. Nahh.. too simple. Everybody else should
adjust to the LLB! "consideration" again.

> The vehicle represented by [YOU] has no obligation to cut between [+++] and
> [===] in the center lane because it creates a dangerously close following
> distance between [+++] and [YOU] as well as [YOU] and [===] once that
> close-proximity lane change occurs.

[YOU] has the obligation to pass or get off the pot (move right).

> If th desired answer is that [YOU] needs accelerate to tailgate [LLB], or
> that [YOU] needs to merge right between [+++] and [===] in the center lane
> to accommodate other traffic that will eventually be slowed by the LLB, then
> that is essentially advocating MFFY driving with respect that it may force
> the other drivers to brake to create a larger gap in the lane to the right
> for their own safety.

Read the rest of the thread before that post. Dave, the resident defender
of LLBing and left lane crusing, believes that his left lane blocking
makes for a safer condition. The question is, in this common chicago
driving situation, how is he making things better? The answer is he is
not, he's making things worse. At 62mph he shouldn't even be in the left
lane. He isn't passing anyone. He is an LLB, just a faster one than the
lead LLB.

> The other fundamental problem, of course, is that the following distances of
> most of the vehicles in that example are still too close. One semi-trailer =
> approxmately two car lengths, and the 2 to 3 seconds minimum following
> distance is much greater than two car lengths.

1) ASCII drawings are not to scale. And you should actually come to
chicago sometime, and you'll see I have made as an accurate depiction of
the the traffic situation as I can with the tools available. Yes,
following distances are tight, especially where an LLB is blocking up the
road.

> It's okay to brake, you know, to maintain a consistent speed of flowing
> traffic. Even in a traffic jam situation, continously flowing traffic at
> 20mph is favorable to traffic that keeps going from 40mph down to 0mph at
> semi-regular intervals.

Now compare your 'better' to what actually occurs when brake lamps light
up. Yep, that's right, herky-jerky.

In article >, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
> "Brent P" > wrote in message

>> How do you deal with this?
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------->
>> ++] [YOU] [LLB]
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------->
>> +] [+++] [===] [SEMI-TRAILER] [===]
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------->
>> [+++] [===] [===] [SEMI-TRAILER]
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------->
>>
>> Assume SL = 55mph
>>
>> Right lane [===] and [SEMI-TRAILER] are doing 60mph
>> Middle lane [===] and [SEMI-TRAILER] are doing 66mph
>> [YOU] are doing 62 mph. The LLB is doing 60mph.
>> [+++] and others coming up to this clog are doing 68mph or more.
>>
> [snip...]

> Simply put, [+++] and others coming up in the left lane need to ensure they
> are following at 2 to 3 seconds back from [YOU], who already has more than a
> reasonable following distance away from [LLB]. In the left lane, [+++] is
> already too close! So, if that means slowing down, then they need to slow
> down. Note that this also assumes that [LLB] will not merge left even though
> they are an LLB.

Maybe the LLB should keep right except to pass so that he isn't causing
traffic to clump up behind. Nahh.. too simple. Everybody else should
adjust to the LLB! "consideration" again.

> The vehicle represented by [YOU] has no obligation to cut between [+++] and
> [===] in the center lane because it creates a dangerously close following
> distance between [+++] and [YOU] as well as [YOU] and [===] once that
> close-proximity lane change occurs.

[YOU] has the obligation to pass or get off the pot (move right).

> If th desired answer is that [YOU] needs accelerate to tailgate [LLB], or
> that [YOU] needs to merge right between [+++] and [===] in the center lane
> to accommodate other traffic that will eventually be slowed by the LLB, then
> that is essentially advocating MFFY driving with respect that it may force
> the other drivers to brake to create a larger gap in the lane to the right
> for their own safety.

Read the rest of the thread before that post. Dave, the resident defender
of LLBing and left lane crusing, believes that his left lane blocking
makes for a safer condition. The question is, in this common chicago
driving situation, how is he making things better? The answer is he is
not, he's making things worse. At 62mph he shouldn't even be in the left
lane. He isn't passing anyone. He is an LLB, just a faster one than the
lead LLB.

> The other fundamental problem, of course, is that the following distances of
> most of the vehicles in that example are still too close. One semi-trailer =
> approxmately two car lengths, and the 2 to 3 seconds minimum following
> distance is much greater than two car lengths.

1) ASCII drawings are not to scale. And you should actually come to
chicago sometime, and you'll see I have made as an accurate depiction of
the the traffic situation as I can with the tools available. Yes,
following distances are tight, especially where an LLB is blocking up the
road.

> It's okay to brake, you know, to maintain a consistent speed of flowing
> traffic. Even in a traffic jam situation, continously flowing traffic at
> 20mph is favorable to traffic that keeps going from 40mph down to 0mph at
> semi-regular intervals.

Now compare your 'better' to what actually occurs when brake lamps light
up. Yep, that's right, herky-jerky.

Dave Head > wrote in
news


>
> **** happens when people make rules that are counterproductive to
> safety and comfort both.


KRETP and STKR increases people's safety.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

Dave Head > wrote in
news


>
> **** happens when people make rules that are counterproductive to
> safety and comfort both.


KRETP and STKR increases people's safety.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

(Brent P) wrote in
news:OZqtd.529681$D%.180915@attbi_s51:



>
> Maybe the LLB should keep right except to pass so that he isn't
> causing traffic to clump up behind. Nahh.. too simple. Everybody else
> should adjust to the LLB! "consideration" again.

IMO,THAT's "enabling";adjusting so that the offender can get away with
their offenses.




--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

(Brent P) wrote in
news:OZqtd.529681$D%.180915@attbi_s51:



>
> Maybe the LLB should keep right except to pass so that he isn't
> causing traffic to clump up behind. Nahh.. too simple. Everybody else
> should adjust to the LLB! "consideration" again.

IMO,THAT's "enabling";adjusting so that the offender can get away with
their offenses.




--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

On 8 Dec 2004 01:55:06 GMT, Jim Yanik .> wrote:

>Dave Head > wrote in
>news >
>
>
>>
>> **** happens when people make rules that are counterproductive to
>> safety and comfort both.
>
>
>KRETP and STKR increases people's safety.

In a perfect world... but not in reality. Not when you'd be one of maybe 10%
on the road actually doing it.

Dave Head

On 8 Dec 2004 01:55:06 GMT, Jim Yanik .> wrote:

>Dave Head > wrote in
>news >
>
>
>>
>> **** happens when people make rules that are counterproductive to
>> safety and comfort both.
>
>
>KRETP and STKR increases people's safety.

In a perfect world... but not in reality. Not when you'd be one of maybe 10%
on the road actually doing it.

Dave Head

Dave Head > wrote in
:

> On 8 Dec 2004 01:55:06 GMT, Jim Yanik .> wrote:
>
>>Dave Head > wrote in
>>news >>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> **** happens when people make rules that are counterproductive to
>>> safety and comfort both.
>>
>>
>>KRETP and STKR increases people's safety.
>
> In a perfect world... but not in reality. Not when you'd be one of
> maybe 10% on the road actually doing it.
>
> Dave Head
>
>

Every little bit helps.Every one doing the wrong thing makes things worse.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

Dave Head > wrote in
:

> On 8 Dec 2004 01:55:06 GMT, Jim Yanik .> wrote:
>
>>Dave Head > wrote in
>>news >>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> **** happens when people make rules that are counterproductive to
>>> safety and comfort both.
>>
>>
>>KRETP and STKR increases people's safety.
>
> In a perfect world... but not in reality. Not when you'd be one of
> maybe 10% on the road actually doing it.
>
> Dave Head
>
>

Every little bit helps.Every one doing the wrong thing makes things worse.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net