Dear Tard

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 19:34:12 -0800, Garth Almgren > wrote:

>Around 12/21/2004 3:27 PM, Dave Head wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 15:17:01 -0800, Garth Almgren > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Around 12/21/2004 5:18 AM, Dave Head wrote:
>>>
>>>>and dealing with cars pulling out and cars braking to turn and
>>>>bicyclists to run over and joggers to run over
>>>
>>>You must have Interstates unlike any that anyone has ever seen if you
>>>have all that stuff happening to you.
>>
>>
>> I keep saying - its Rt 3 east of Fredericksburg, Va. That is _not_ an
>> interstate.
>
>Even so, your rationalizations are still just that. Not even good
>rationalizations, since all they boil down to is irrational fear.
>
>>>With the exception of the occasional cop pulling into a U-turn, none of
>>>the limited access roads I've seen ever has any of that kind of thing
>>>happening.
>>
>>
>> It ain't even limited access - which is what makes the left lane so desirable.
>> Lotsa dangerous **** going on in the right lane...
>
>Is there *any* aspect of driving that doesn't frighten you?

Absolutely not. Have you seen the stats? 40,000 a year die doing this ****.
I don't feel a bit bad about recognizing the dangers.

>>>Care to try any other fallacious rationalizations?
>>
>>
>> Care to pay attention?
>
>That's funny, coming from an oblivious LLB.
>
>
>>>>Hey, wait a minute - if he's signaling to _you_ to get into the "passing" lane
>>>>this must mean...
>>>
>>>That he's actively passing the person who is signaling.
>>
>> So'm I.
>
>See, that right there is where lying will get you into trouble.
>
>No, you're *not* actively passing - not if, as you said, "THEY CAN
>ALWAYS PASS ME ON THE RIGHT, LUNKHEAD!!!!"

Oh, gimmie a break. Of course they can't pass when I'm actually passing
someone else, but that is intermittant. Generally, I say that they can _almost
always_ pass me on the right, and the occasional person I'm passing is the
reason for the almost. I may have misspoke once or twice and left out the
almost. Naturally, I would figure someone would jump on the technicality.

Hey, I got one for ya' - you pass a car, the next car is 500 feet ahead. Gonna
jump back into the right lane? Well, you could - after you spend enough time
in the left lane to get 2 seconds - 176 feet - ahead of the car you just passed
in order to give him a safe following distance, assuming they're going about
60 mph. . Then you have to get back in the left lane when you're 176 feet from
the car in front if you intend to pass it, again so as not to be following too
closely. So, you end up being in the right lane for about 148 feet for 2 cars
about 1/10th of a mile apart. So, if you're passing at all, you're spending
over 2/3rds of your time in the left lane anyway unless cars are very, very far
apart.

DPH

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 19:34:12 -0800, Garth Almgren > wrote:

>Around 12/21/2004 3:27 PM, Dave Head wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 15:17:01 -0800, Garth Almgren > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Around 12/21/2004 5:18 AM, Dave Head wrote:
>>>
>>>>and dealing with cars pulling out and cars braking to turn and
>>>>bicyclists to run over and joggers to run over
>>>
>>>You must have Interstates unlike any that anyone has ever seen if you
>>>have all that stuff happening to you.
>>
>>
>> I keep saying - its Rt 3 east of Fredericksburg, Va. That is _not_ an
>> interstate.
>
>Even so, your rationalizations are still just that. Not even good
>rationalizations, since all they boil down to is irrational fear.
>
>>>With the exception of the occasional cop pulling into a U-turn, none of
>>>the limited access roads I've seen ever has any of that kind of thing
>>>happening.
>>
>>
>> It ain't even limited access - which is what makes the left lane so desirable.
>> Lotsa dangerous **** going on in the right lane...
>
>Is there *any* aspect of driving that doesn't frighten you?

Absolutely not. Have you seen the stats? 40,000 a year die doing this ****.
I don't feel a bit bad about recognizing the dangers.

>>>Care to try any other fallacious rationalizations?
>>
>>
>> Care to pay attention?
>
>That's funny, coming from an oblivious LLB.
>
>
>>>>Hey, wait a minute - if he's signaling to _you_ to get into the "passing" lane
>>>>this must mean...
>>>
>>>That he's actively passing the person who is signaling.
>>
>> So'm I.
>
>See, that right there is where lying will get you into trouble.
>
>No, you're *not* actively passing - not if, as you said, "THEY CAN
>ALWAYS PASS ME ON THE RIGHT, LUNKHEAD!!!!"

Oh, gimmie a break. Of course they can't pass when I'm actually passing
someone else, but that is intermittant. Generally, I say that they can _almost
always_ pass me on the right, and the occasional person I'm passing is the
reason for the almost. I may have misspoke once or twice and left out the
almost. Naturally, I would figure someone would jump on the technicality.

Hey, I got one for ya' - you pass a car, the next car is 500 feet ahead. Gonna
jump back into the right lane? Well, you could - after you spend enough time
in the left lane to get 2 seconds - 176 feet - ahead of the car you just passed
in order to give him a safe following distance, assuming they're going about
60 mph. . Then you have to get back in the left lane when you're 176 feet from
the car in front if you intend to pass it, again so as not to be following too
closely. So, you end up being in the right lane for about 148 feet for 2 cars
about 1/10th of a mile apart. So, if you're passing at all, you're spending
over 2/3rds of your time in the left lane anyway unless cars are very, very far
apart.

DPH

Around 12/21/2004 8:00 PM, Dave Head wrote:

> On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 19:34:12 -0800, Garth Almgren > wrote:
>
>>Around 12/21/2004 3:27 PM, Dave Head wrote:
>>
>>>It ain't even limited access - which is what makes the left lane so desirable.
>>>Lotsa dangerous **** going on in the right lane...
>>
>>Is there *any* aspect of driving that doesn't frighten you?
>
>
> Absolutely not.

Doesn't surprise me. That's probably a large part of your problem.

> Have you seen the stats? 40,000 a year die doing this ****.
> I don't feel a bit bad about recognizing the dangers.

Recognizing danger, when it exists, is fine. Exaggerating it, and then
overreacting to it, isn't.

You're doing the latter with certain negligible dangers to the detriment
of all, yourself included.

43,000 a year. Big whoop. You're more likely to have a heart attack or
be killed by medical malpractice than you are to die in a car collision.

Nearly 700,000 people died of heart disease in 2001. Over 550,000 died
of cancer. The roads just barely edged out Nephritis at 40,974, but the
main difference is YOU CAN DO SOMETHING about your driving, since proper
driving lessens your risk to some degree.

>>>>That he's actively passing the person who is signaling.
>>>
>>>So'm I.
>>
>>See, that right there is where lying will get you into trouble.
>>
>>No, you're *not* actively passing - not if, as you said, "THEY CAN
>>ALWAYS PASS ME ON THE RIGHT, LUNKHEAD!!!!"
>
>
> Oh, gimmie a break.

No, I won't. You've said "always" *repeatedly* in the past month, and
what's more, I think you truly believe it, which is both scary and sad.

> Hey, I got one for ya' - you pass a car, the next car is 500 feet ahead. Gonna
> jump back into the right lane?

That depends. I don't work in distance; I use time instead, since it's
easier to estimate on the fly.

If I can spend 10 or more seconds in the right lane? Ya sure, you betcha
I'll pull right. Every time.

Less than a 10 second gap, with faster traffic approaching from behind?
I'll either duck into that gap (if I can maintain a safe 2 second
buffer) or speed up to finish my pass quicker. As is proper.


--
~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie.
Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave.
******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant."
for secure mail info) --H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

Around 12/21/2004 8:00 PM, Dave Head wrote:

> On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 19:34:12 -0800, Garth Almgren > wrote:
>
>>Around 12/21/2004 3:27 PM, Dave Head wrote:
>>
>>>It ain't even limited access - which is what makes the left lane so desirable.
>>>Lotsa dangerous **** going on in the right lane...
>>
>>Is there *any* aspect of driving that doesn't frighten you?
>
>
> Absolutely not.

Doesn't surprise me. That's probably a large part of your problem.

> Have you seen the stats? 40,000 a year die doing this ****.
> I don't feel a bit bad about recognizing the dangers.

Recognizing danger, when it exists, is fine. Exaggerating it, and then
overreacting to it, isn't.

You're doing the latter with certain negligible dangers to the detriment
of all, yourself included.

43,000 a year. Big whoop. You're more likely to have a heart attack or
be killed by medical malpractice than you are to die in a car collision.

Nearly 700,000 people died of heart disease in 2001. Over 550,000 died
of cancer. The roads just barely edged out Nephritis at 40,974, but the
main difference is YOU CAN DO SOMETHING about your driving, since proper
driving lessens your risk to some degree.

>>>>That he's actively passing the person who is signaling.
>>>
>>>So'm I.
>>
>>See, that right there is where lying will get you into trouble.
>>
>>No, you're *not* actively passing - not if, as you said, "THEY CAN
>>ALWAYS PASS ME ON THE RIGHT, LUNKHEAD!!!!"
>
>
> Oh, gimmie a break.

No, I won't. You've said "always" *repeatedly* in the past month, and
what's more, I think you truly believe it, which is both scary and sad.

> Hey, I got one for ya' - you pass a car, the next car is 500 feet ahead. Gonna
> jump back into the right lane?

That depends. I don't work in distance; I use time instead, since it's
easier to estimate on the fly.

If I can spend 10 or more seconds in the right lane? Ya sure, you betcha
I'll pull right. Every time.

Less than a 10 second gap, with faster traffic approaching from behind?
I'll either duck into that gap (if I can maintain a safe 2 second
buffer) or speed up to finish my pass quicker. As is proper.


--
~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie.
Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave.
******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant."
for secure mail info) --H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 21:01:51 -0800, Garth Almgren > wrote:

>Around 12/21/2004 8:00 PM, Dave Head wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 19:34:12 -0800, Garth Almgren > wrote:
>>
>>>Around 12/21/2004 3:27 PM, Dave Head wrote:
>>>
>>>>It ain't even limited access - which is what makes the left lane so desirable.
>>>>Lotsa dangerous **** going on in the right lane...
>>>
>>>Is there *any* aspect of driving that doesn't frighten you?
>>
>>
>> Absolutely not.
>
>Doesn't surprise me. That's probably a large part of your problem.

I don't have a problem. I've never deployed an air bag, bent a fender, etc.
with another vehicle. Its because of these measures I take to lessen the
chance for something to go to hell.

>> Have you seen the stats? 40,000 a year die doing this ****.
>> I don't feel a bit bad about recognizing the dangers.
>
>Recognizing danger, when it exists, is fine. Exaggerating it, and then
>overreacting to it, isn't.

Its just what I need to keep from getting too many exciting encounters, that's
all.

>You're doing the latter with certain negligible dangers to the detriment
>of all, yourself included.
>
>43,000 a year. Big whoop. You're more likely to have a heart attack or
>be killed by medical malpractice than you are to die in a car collision.
>
>Nearly 700,000 people died of heart disease in 2001. Over 550,000 died
>of cancer. The roads just barely edged out Nephritis at 40,974, but the
>main difference is YOU CAN DO SOMETHING about your driving, since proper
>driving lessens your risk to some degree.

No, it doesn't. If it did, I wouldn't have the exciting encounters that I get
occasionally in the right lane, that I can easily see wouldn't have happened if
I had been in the left lane. Its real consistent, too. I'm not going to
ignore my observations to satisfy your theory.

DPH

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 21:01:51 -0800, Garth Almgren > wrote:

>Around 12/21/2004 8:00 PM, Dave Head wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 19:34:12 -0800, Garth Almgren > wrote:
>>
>>>Around 12/21/2004 3:27 PM, Dave Head wrote:
>>>
>>>>It ain't even limited access - which is what makes the left lane so desirable.
>>>>Lotsa dangerous **** going on in the right lane...
>>>
>>>Is there *any* aspect of driving that doesn't frighten you?
>>
>>
>> Absolutely not.
>
>Doesn't surprise me. That's probably a large part of your problem.

I don't have a problem. I've never deployed an air bag, bent a fender, etc.
with another vehicle. Its because of these measures I take to lessen the
chance for something to go to hell.

>> Have you seen the stats? 40,000 a year die doing this ****.
>> I don't feel a bit bad about recognizing the dangers.
>
>Recognizing danger, when it exists, is fine. Exaggerating it, and then
>overreacting to it, isn't.

Its just what I need to keep from getting too many exciting encounters, that's
all.

>You're doing the latter with certain negligible dangers to the detriment
>of all, yourself included.
>
>43,000 a year. Big whoop. You're more likely to have a heart attack or
>be killed by medical malpractice than you are to die in a car collision.
>
>Nearly 700,000 people died of heart disease in 2001. Over 550,000 died
>of cancer. The roads just barely edged out Nephritis at 40,974, but the
>main difference is YOU CAN DO SOMETHING about your driving, since proper
>driving lessens your risk to some degree.

No, it doesn't. If it did, I wouldn't have the exciting encounters that I get
occasionally in the right lane, that I can easily see wouldn't have happened if
I had been in the left lane. Its real consistent, too. I'm not going to
ignore my observations to satisfy your theory.

DPH

Around 12/22/2004 3:18 PM, Dave Head wrote:

> On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 21:01:51 -0800, Garth Almgren > wrote:
>
>>Around 12/21/2004 8:00 PM, Dave Head wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 19:34:12 -0800, Garth Almgren > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Around 12/21/2004 3:27 PM, Dave Head wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>It ain't even limited access - which is what makes the left lane so desirable.
>>>>>Lotsa dangerous **** going on in the right lane...
>>>>
>>>>Is there *any* aspect of driving that doesn't frighten you?
>>>
>>>
>>>Absolutely not.
>>
>>Doesn't surprise me. That's probably a large part of your problem.
>
>
> I don't have a problem.

Yes, you do. You're an oblivious LLB with some sort of bizarre driving
phobia.

Everyone says that admitting you have a problem is the first step, and
it seems you haven't even gotten that far. Hint: When everyone is
telling you that you have a problem, there probably is a lot of merit to
the idea.

>>You're doing the latter with certain negligible dangers to the detriment
>>of all, yourself included.
>>
>>43,000 a year. Big whoop. You're more likely to have a heart attack or
>>be killed by medical malpractice than you are to die in a car collision.
>>
>>Nearly 700,000 people died of heart disease in 2001. Over 550,000 died
>>of cancer. The roads just barely edged out Nephritis at 40,974, but the
>>main difference is YOU CAN DO SOMETHING about your driving, since proper
>>driving lessens your risk to some degree.
>
>
> No, it doesn't.

Yes, it does.

One example, the Autobahn: Higher speeds + proper driving = lower
fatality rate.

> If it did, I wouldn't have the exciting encounters that I get
> occasionally in the right lane, that I can easily see wouldn't have happened if
> I had been in the left lane.

See, that's only a reflection on your inability to drive properly, not
on how driving properly reduces your risk of an accident.


>
> Its real consistent, too.

So, you're a consistently bad driver. From what you've written, that's
not surprising either.

Nobody else here has the problems you have with driving properly.
Shouldn't that tell you something?


> I'm not going to ignore my observations to satisfy your theory.

Your observations are flawed; even when you summon the guts to tiptoe
towards proper KRETP driving, it sounds like you've never really made
it. You're still doing something wrong if you keep having "exciting
encounters."

Which theory, BTW?

--
~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie.
Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave.
******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant."
for secure mail info) --H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

Around 12/22/2004 3:18 PM, Dave Head wrote:

> On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 21:01:51 -0800, Garth Almgren > wrote:
>
>>Around 12/21/2004 8:00 PM, Dave Head wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 19:34:12 -0800, Garth Almgren > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Around 12/21/2004 3:27 PM, Dave Head wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>It ain't even limited access - which is what makes the left lane so desirable.
>>>>>Lotsa dangerous **** going on in the right lane...
>>>>
>>>>Is there *any* aspect of driving that doesn't frighten you?
>>>
>>>
>>>Absolutely not.
>>
>>Doesn't surprise me. That's probably a large part of your problem.
>
>
> I don't have a problem.

Yes, you do. You're an oblivious LLB with some sort of bizarre driving
phobia.

Everyone says that admitting you have a problem is the first step, and
it seems you haven't even gotten that far. Hint: When everyone is
telling you that you have a problem, there probably is a lot of merit to
the idea.

>>You're doing the latter with certain negligible dangers to the detriment
>>of all, yourself included.
>>
>>43,000 a year. Big whoop. You're more likely to have a heart attack or
>>be killed by medical malpractice than you are to die in a car collision.
>>
>>Nearly 700,000 people died of heart disease in 2001. Over 550,000 died
>>of cancer. The roads just barely edged out Nephritis at 40,974, but the
>>main difference is YOU CAN DO SOMETHING about your driving, since proper
>>driving lessens your risk to some degree.
>
>
> No, it doesn't.

Yes, it does.

One example, the Autobahn: Higher speeds + proper driving = lower
fatality rate.

> If it did, I wouldn't have the exciting encounters that I get
> occasionally in the right lane, that I can easily see wouldn't have happened if
> I had been in the left lane.

See, that's only a reflection on your inability to drive properly, not
on how driving properly reduces your risk of an accident.


>
> Its real consistent, too.

So, you're a consistently bad driver. From what you've written, that's
not surprising either.

Nobody else here has the problems you have with driving properly.
Shouldn't that tell you something?


> I'm not going to ignore my observations to satisfy your theory.

Your observations are flawed; even when you summon the guts to tiptoe
towards proper KRETP driving, it sounds like you've never really made
it. You're still doing something wrong if you keep having "exciting
encounters."

Which theory, BTW?

--
~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie.
Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave.
******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant."
for secure mail info) --H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

Dave Head wrote:
> Oh, gimmie a break. Of course they can't pass when I'm actually passing
> someone else, but that is intermittant. Generally, I say that they can _almost
> always_ pass me on the right, and the occasional person I'm passing is the
> reason for the almost. I may have misspoke once or twice and left out the
> almost. Naturally, I would figure someone would jump on the technicality.
>
> Hey, I got one for ya' - you pass a car, the next car is 500 feet ahead. Gonna
> jump back into the right lane? Well, you could - after you spend enough time
> in the left lane to get 2 seconds - 176 feet - ahead of the car you just passed
> in order to give him a safe following distance, assuming they're going about
> 60 mph. . Then you have to get back in the left lane when you're 176 feet from
> the car in front if you intend to pass it, again so as not to be following too
> closely. So, you end up being in the right lane for about 148 feet for 2 cars
> about 1/10th of a mile apart. So, if you're passing at all, you're spending
> over 2/3rds of your time in the left lane anyway unless cars are very, very far
> apart.

There's a good rule of thumb for this process, the "45 second rule". If you
can move to the right lane and stay there for 45 seconds before you have to
move left to pass the next guy, then you're supposed to do just that.

Dave Head wrote:
> Oh, gimmie a break. Of course they can't pass when I'm actually passing
> someone else, but that is intermittant. Generally, I say that they can _almost
> always_ pass me on the right, and the occasional person I'm passing is the
> reason for the almost. I may have misspoke once or twice and left out the
> almost. Naturally, I would figure someone would jump on the technicality.
>
> Hey, I got one for ya' - you pass a car, the next car is 500 feet ahead. Gonna
> jump back into the right lane? Well, you could - after you spend enough time
> in the left lane to get 2 seconds - 176 feet - ahead of the car you just passed
> in order to give him a safe following distance, assuming they're going about
> 60 mph. . Then you have to get back in the left lane when you're 176 feet from
> the car in front if you intend to pass it, again so as not to be following too
> closely. So, you end up being in the right lane for about 148 feet for 2 cars
> about 1/10th of a mile apart. So, if you're passing at all, you're spending
> over 2/3rds of your time in the left lane anyway unless cars are very, very far
> apart.

There's a good rule of thumb for this process, the "45 second rule". If you
can move to the right lane and stay there for 45 seconds before you have to
move left to pass the next guy, then you're supposed to do just that.