If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Usual Suspect wrote: > Olaf Gustafson wrote: > > >>3. The left lane is typically faster than other lanes > > > > > > Not with you blocking it, it's not. > > Again, you are arguing from some sort of communist perspective. My driving > in the left lane does not slow it down FOR ME. > > >>4. I don't especially like changing lanes (to pass or whatever) > > > > Or obeying the law, apparently. > > What law? AFAIK "Slower traffic keep left" is a recommendation, even when > posted. (If you think it's a law in CA, post a relevant reference). > > Regardless, it's not enforced. I was once driving at night on a divided road > with 2 lanes in each direction. The speed limit was 40 mph and I was going > at about 7 mph over the limit, or so. I was driving in the left lane of > course. Now an SUV comes out of nowhere and passes me in the right lane. > Just as he or she does that, a police cruiser that was hiding in the dark > turns on its lights and stops that speeder. Would he have stopped me if it > were not for the SUV? I don't know, but I like to think that my LLB'ing, as > you call it, paid off. simply because a speeding ticket is easier to make stick in court. Just because you got away with something doesn't make it any less wrong. nate |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Usual Suspect wrote:
> Garth Almgren wrote: > >> VC 21654 >> (a)*Notwithstanding*the*prima*facie*speed*limits,* any >> vehicle proceeding upon a highway at a speed less than the normal >> speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time shall be > > > Aha! If you read my original post in this thread, you will notice > > "If I don't have to exit for another 5-10 miles and the freeway is > divided, I tend to get into the left lane and stay there, driving at 75-80 > mph, which usually puts me in the 70-90th percentile, or so, in terms of > speed." > > Thanks for showing that my behavior (other than speeding) is legal. > > ... God, I'm so excited about my winning this argument with Jailbird and the rest of "get out of my lane, because I'm speeding" apologists, I'm tempted to take the rest of the afternoon off and go for a drive (in the left lane, of course). |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
"Usual Suspect" > wrote in message ... > Usual Suspect wrote: > >> Garth Almgren wrote: >> >>> VC 21654 >>> (a) Notwithstanding the prima facie speed limits, any >>> vehicle proceeding upon a highway at a speed less than the normal >>> speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time shall be >> >> >> Aha! If you read my original post in this thread, you will notice >> >> "If I don't have to exit for another 5-10 miles and the freeway is >> divided, I tend to get into the left lane and stay there, driving at >> 75-80 >> mph, which usually puts me in the 70-90th percentile, or so, in terms of >> speed." >> >> Thanks for showing that my behavior (other than speeding) is legal. >> >> ... > > God, I'm so excited about my winning this argument with Jailbird and the > rest of "get out of my lane, because I'm speeding" apologists, I'm tempted > to take the rest of the afternoon off and go for a drive (in the left > lane, > of course). I can not see your victory, perhaps it does not exist? Bernard |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
TCS wrote:
> Lane changes are inherently dangerous and doing several hundred > every hour is just asking for an accident. Bull****. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
"Arif Khokar" > wrote in message
... > TCS wrote: > > > Lane changes are inherently dangerous and doing several hundred > > every hour is just asking for an accident. > > Bull****. Such a blanket statement--but here's a more accurate assessment, in my opinion: * Lane changes are inherently dangerous when vehicles are following at such close following distances that vehicles have to force themselves into narrow gaps in order to change lanes to merge onto a freeway, exit the freeway, or change to a proper lane for the appropriate freeway junction. (Define "narrow gap" as one where two headlights are not in the rearview mirror before the lane change occurs.) Add aggressive drivers who speed up to block at the first sign of a turn signal, and yeah, they are dangerous indeed. * On the other hand, lane changes are not inherenetly dangerous when vehicles are following at a minimum 2 second following distance, since a sufficient gap exists for a car to fit in without necessarily cutting off or tailgating another vehicle (although some might consider that "enabling"). In both cases, lane changes are less dangerous using the BGE side mirror adjustment vs. the conventional side mirror adjustment. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 21:08:31 GMT, Arif Khokar > wrote:
>TCS wrote: >> Lane changes are inherently dangerous and doing several hundred >> every hour is just asking for an accident. >Bull****. Then please refute my statement. You think zigging in and out of traffic is perfectly safe? |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Arif Khokar wrote:
> TCS wrote: > > > Lane changes are inherently dangerous and doing several hundred > > every hour is just asking for an accident. > > Bull****. Let's see, now ... Taking a rather low value for "several" of four, I make that an average of one lane change every nine seconds. Yes, I *would* call that "just asking for an accident", although I would probably put it even more strongly. Of course, even four hundred lane changes per hour is an implausibly high rate. Perhaps that's the bit to which you object? The first clause, "Lane changes are inherently dangerous", is putting things more strongly than is really warranted, but, all else being equal (which, of course, it never is, however hard you try), keeping the number of lane changes down *does* make things *slightly* safer. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
TCS wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 21:08:31 GMT, Arif Khokar > wrote: >>>Lane changes are inherently dangerous and doing several hundred >>>every hour is just asking for an accident. > Then please refute my statement. You think zigging in and out of traffic > is perfectly safe? Per hour, I make anywhere from 60 to 240 lane changes. I've never been involved in a collision due to a lane change. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Robert Briggs wrote:
> Taking a rather low value for "several" of four, I make that an > average of one lane change every nine seconds. Several, as far as I know, is 3 or more. If there was enough traffic, then I could make up to 240 lane changes per hour. As long as one keeps track of traffic around them, lane changes are not dangerous. > The first clause, "Lane changes are inherently dangerous", is putting > things more strongly than is really warranted, but, all else being > equal (which, of course, it never is, however hard you try), keeping > the number of lane changes down *does* make things *slightly* safer. I really do not believe that changing lanes often is risky in and of itself. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
In article >, Usual Suspect wrote:
> Brent P wrote: > >> In article >, Usual Suspect wrote: >> >>> Regardless, it's not enforced. I was once driving at night on a divided >>> road with 2 lanes in each direction. The speed limit was 40 mph and I was >>> going at about 7 mph over the limit, or so. I was driving in the left >>> lane of course. Now an SUV comes out of nowhere and passes me in the >>> right lane. Just as he or she does that, a police cruiser that was hiding >>> in the dark turns on its lights and stops that speeder. Would he have >>> stopped me if it were not for the SUV? I don't know, but I like to think >>> that my LLB'ing, as you call it, paid off. >> >> Came out of nowhere... not watching your mirrors. That's pretty >> consistant with your other posts. >> >> Late one night I was driving on a 6 lane arterial. I was doing about >> 48mph and the speed limit is 45mph. I was in the right lane minding my >> own business when an SUV in the left lane that had been gaining on me >> passes me. The SUV is moving at about 55mph. From a typical hiding place >> off the right side of the road a police cruiser emerges and turns on the >> rollers, pulling over the SUV driver. >> >> If the left lane saved you, the right lane saved me. > You missed the point I was trying to make. Given a choice between a LLB and > a [bigger] speeder, the cop chose the latter. Doesn't make LLBing correct. Cops are revenue collectors in this aspect of their job and speeding is of higher revenue. > Secondly, the word on the > street is cops really don't like lane-swervers, as they are the ones who > cause most accidents. There wouldn't be 'lane-swevers' if passive aggresive types. like yourself weren't blocking the passing lane. And the root cause is bad lane displine in general, which your kind is the greatest contributor. > Pick a lane most consistent with your speed, and stick with it. There is no lane most consistant with my speed. I am either passing or I am not. I choose my lane based on that. May you only encounter drivers like yourself, except slower. Much slower. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Driving Issues | Joe P. | Driving | 14 | December 31st 04 11:33 PM |
HEMI's HOT | Luke Smith | Driving | 208 | December 19th 04 05:27 PM |
Subject: Traffic School - online traffic school experience response | [email protected] | Corvette | 0 | October 9th 04 05:56 PM |