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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Jean-David Beyer wrote:
> > Does he want me to get ticked and fined for doing that? Here in New > Jersey, one is legally required to keep in the right hand lane except when > passing other vehicles. I've never heard of anyone getting ticketed for it. Even if you do get ticketed, the charge is easily thrown out in court. And even if, hypothetically, it doesn't, it does not affect your insurance premiums. Would you rather run a small risk of that or have your brains spilled all over the right lane by a merging truck? The right lane is for merging and exiting vehicles, it's not for normal driving, unless you are suicidal. Look at this "before" pictu http://linuxreviews.org/news/2004/09/30_0_accident/ Do you want to see the "after"? |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Usual Suspect > wrote:
>Jean-David Beyer wrote: > >> >> Does he want me to get ticked and fined for doing that? Here in New >> Jersey, one is legally required to keep in the right hand lane except when >> passing other vehicles. > >I've never heard of anyone getting ticketed for it. Even if you do get Some years ago I visited California, and drove from Sacramento to San Francisco on a holiday weekend. It was interesting... though I'd been warned by locals before the trip. There were Highway Patrol vehicles all over the place, and obviously they were using an airplane to time vehicles for speeding, with the patrol cars then going after them. What was fun to watch though was the way traffic would clear for a patrol car, and this was what I'd been warned about. If the patrol car would have to change lanes to pass, instead of passing they would pull the obstructing vehicle over and ticket them for not moving to the right lane. Almost everyone was aware of this, and hence the sight of a Highway Patrol car in the rearview mirror meant everyone dodged to clear the way. Personally, I thought it was one of the more gross displays of institutional stupidity I've ever seen. >ticketed, the charge is easily thrown out in court. And even if, >hypothetically, it doesn't, it does not affect your insurance premiums. >Would you rather run a small risk of that or have your brains spilled all >over the right lane by a merging truck? The right lane is for merging and >exiting vehicles, it's not for normal driving, unless you are suicidal. Regardless of the stupidity involved, virtually everything you say about it is untrue. I'll grant that hugging the right side is dangerous (actually, _changing lanes_ is dangerous, but since more of that is necessary as one nears the right lane, the right lane is indeed dangerous as a result). However, on any highway built to Interstate standards, which is to say if there is *no left side egress*, it is a valid (albeit not necessarily smart) law to require traffic to favor the right lane when not passing. It almost makes sense with two lanes, but gets to be less and less sane with more than two lanes of traffic. The big problem I've seen is rural states trying to pass the same laws for roads that are not built to Interstate standards. (Alaska's highways are an example, and they've tried the "Slower Traffic Keep Right" even on roads with left side egress *that* *lacks* *a* *left* *turn* *lane* no less! Abject stupidity! Of coursed, the best answer is to live 300 miles from the nearest pave road... :-) -- Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
begin >,
Usual Suspect > writes: > Arif Khokar wrote: > >> Jean-David Beyer wrote: >> >>> Does he want me to get ticked and fined for doing that? Here in New >>> Jersey, one is legally required to keep in the right hand lane except >>> when passing other vehicles. >> >> Don't worry about it. The OP is a troll. >> >> But at least some good may come out of it (since this reminds me of some >> hardware config problems I have under Mandrake that I've been meaning to >> fix) > > Only morons use Mandrake, and since we already knew you were a moron, you > just added another datapoint supporting this theory. On the contrary, your statement is clearly false as I know people who use Mandrake who are not morons. Now show to me you are not a moron. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
begin ?! Roy Culley wrote:
> begin >, > Usual Suspect > writes: >> Arif Khokar wrote: >> >>> Jean-David Beyer wrote: >>> >>>> Does he want me to get ticked and fined for doing that? Here in New >>>> Jersey, one is legally required to keep in the right hand lane except >>>> when passing other vehicles. >>> >>> Don't worry about it. The OP is a troll. >>> >>> But at least some good may come out of it (since this reminds me of some >>> hardware config problems I have under Mandrake that I've been meaning to >>> fix) >> >> Only morons use Mandrake, and since we already knew you were a moron, you >> just added another datapoint supporting this theory. > > On the contrary, your statement is clearly false as I know people who > use Mandrake who are not morons. Now show to me you are not a moron. You are just a blip on my laptop's LCD. Keep that in mind. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>*I'll*grant*that*hugging*the*right*side > is dangerous (actually, _changing lanes_ is dangerous, but since > more of that is necessary as one nears the right lane, the right > lane is indeed dangerous as a result). Yes > However, on any highway built to Interstate standards, which is to > say if there is *no left side egress*, it is a valid (albeit not > necessarily smart) law to require traffic to favor the right lane > when not passing.**It*almost*makes*sense*with*two*lanes,*bu t*gets > to be less and less sane with more than two lanes of traffic. Not quite. It makes very little sense with two lanes. Ideally, everyone would move at a safe speed and distance in the left lane, with the right lane clear for merging vehicles (including trucks like the one that almost had RMS splattered all over it). The only ones advocating "keep right except to pass" (KRETP) are those who drive much faster that everyone (and the speed limit, of course). They want the left lane cleared for them as they approach. > The big problem I've seen is rural states trying to pass the > same laws for roads that are not built to Interstate standards. > (Alaska's highways are an example, and they've tried the "Slower > Traffic Keep Right" even on roads with left side egress that > lacks *a* left turn lane no less!**Abject*stupidity! In California, legally, you are only supposed to stay away from the leftmost lane if you are moving slower than the "normal speed of traffic at that particular point and time" (the law does not seem to define what "normal speed of traffic" is, other than say it may be distinct from the speed limit). Regardless, I've never heard of this silly law being enforced around San Diego. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Usual Suspect wrote:
> Floyd L. Davidson wrote: > >>I'll*grant*that*hugging*the*right*side >> is dangerous (actually, _changing lanes_ is dangerous, but since >> more of that is necessary as one nears the right lane, the right >> lane is indeed dangerous as a result). > > Yes > >> However, on any highway built to Interstate standards, which is to >> say if there is *no left side egress*, it is a valid (albeit not >> necessarily smart) law to require traffic to favor the right lane >> when not passing.**It*almost*makes*sense*with*two*lanes,*bu t*gets >> to be less and less sane with more than two lanes of traffic. > > Not quite. It makes very little sense with two lanes. Ideally, everyone > would move at a safe speed and distance in the left lane, with the right > lane clear for merging vehicles (including trucks like the one that almost > had RMS splattered all over it). > > The only ones advocating "keep right except to pass" (KRETP) are those who > drive much faster that everyone (and the speed limit, of course). They > want the left lane cleared for them as they approach. > >> The big problem I've seen is rural states trying to pass the >> same laws for roads that are not built to Interstate standards. >> (Alaska's highways are an example, and they've tried the "Slower >> Traffic Keep Right" even on roads with left side egress that >> lacks *a* left turn lane no less!**Abject*stupidity! > > In California, legally, you are only supposed to stay away from the > leftmost lane if you are moving slower than the "normal speed of traffic > at that particular point and time" (the law does not seem to define what > "normal speed of traffic" is, other than say it may be distinct from the > speed limit). Regardless, I've never heard of this silly law being > enforced around San Diego. I'm sorry, this should be "normal speed of traffic moving in your direction (as opposed to `lane`) at the time". It's not clearly defined, and very hard to prove, so taking into account the presumption of innocence, it's really a non-law. I don't know of anyone punished for violating it in this state. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Usual Suspect poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>>>> Don't worry about it. The OP is a troll. >>>> > You are just a blip on my laptop's LCD. Keep that in mind. Bye-bye, blip. PLONK -- I'm going Siegfried for awhile |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 16:04:06 -0800, Usual Suspect wrote:
> Jean-David Beyer wrote: > >> >> Does he want me to get ticked and fined for doing that? Here in New >> Jersey, one is legally required to keep in the right hand lane except when >> passing other vehicles. > > I've never heard of anyone getting ticketed for it. Even if you do get > ticketed, the charge is easily thrown out in court. And even if, > hypothetically, it doesn't, it does not affect your insurance premiums. > Would you rather run a small risk of that or have your brains spilled all > over the right lane by a merging truck? The right lane is for merging and > exiting vehicles, it's not for normal driving, unless you are suicidal. Speaking as someone who drives just about every day on a very busy highway[1]: I almost never see a right lane accident, and most of the "right lane" accidents I do see are on the ramps, (off ramps more than on), or in the transfer lanes. Mind you, the 401 does have good visibility to/from most of the on ramps. So perhaps what is needed is better highway design. [1] Before anyone pipes up about their highway, if it doesn't have at least twelve lanes, (i.e. six each way), it isn't even in the same league. The 401 has fourteen lanes across the GTA, and needs them. -- Phoenix |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"Usual Suspect" > wrote in message ... > Many of you probably heard of Hans Bakker, a rising open software star, > whose life was prematurely finished because of driving in the deadly right > lane. > > After dropping off Richard Stallman, at the end of the open software > conference in Europe last year (Stallman gave a talk about software > patents), Hans and his companions were driving in the deadly right lane, > when a merging truck collided with them, killing Hans, and injuring > others. > > I would like to urge all Linux enthusiasts to drive safely by staying in > the > leftmost lane, if they are driving on a divided freeway, away from the > deadly onramps, where most of the accidents occur (opposite in England, of > course). This is what Hans would have wanted us to do. > > Watch the speed limit, and stay in the left lane; let those Microsoft > drones > drive in the right lane if they feel like being reckless. A Linux > programmer's life is too valuable to be wasted on traffic accidents. Cite the stats that prove more highway accidents occur at the ramps. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
HEMI's HOT | Luke Smith | Driving | 208 | December 19th 04 05:27 PM |
There I was, Driving in the Right Lane... | Dave Head | Driving | 110 | December 18th 04 02:07 AM |
Subject: Traffic School - online traffic school experience response | [email protected] | Corvette | 0 | October 9th 04 05:56 PM |