Clump
 

Last night was typical. I'm coming back from Fredericksburg on Rt 3. Believe
it or not, I'm driving the right lane. Think that helps anything? Nooooo....

First guy to catch me slows down on my left rear for about 1/2 mile, then drops
in behind me following a bit closer than I'd like. I ignore him.

The next guy comes up, also slows down on my left rear, then drops back and
goes LLB beside the guy behind me, forming the early stages of a clump.

Then another car catches these 2 Einsteins, and the LLB beside the car behind
me drifts back to LLB beside this guy. I think there was another car behind
the 3rd row at some point - not sure.

Finally, the last act of the clump is for the original guy who dropped in
behind me to finally fall back to a reasonable following distance, which
occured 9 miles after he first caught me. The others stayed with him, so at
least they're comfortably behind when I had to slow for a left turn (there's a
turnout) to exit rt 3.

What's the point? I dunno - prolly none, other than it shows that people
'round here really, really like to hold each other up, drive in close proximity
to each other, and be generally annoying.

DPH

In article >, Dave Head wrote:

> What's the point? I dunno - prolly none, other than it shows that people
> 'round here really, really like to hold each other up, drive in close proximity
> to each other, and be generally annoying.

And every last one these drivers in the left lane causing the clump thinks,
'if someone wants to pass, they can pass me on the right'.

In article >, Dave Head wrote:

> What's the point? I dunno - prolly none, other than it shows that people
> 'round here really, really like to hold each other up, drive in close proximity
> to each other, and be generally annoying.

And every last one these drivers in the left lane causing the clump thinks,
'if someone wants to pass, they can pass me on the right'.

Brent P wrote:
> In article >, Dave Head
wrote:
>
> > What's the point? I dunno - prolly none, other than it shows that
people
> > 'round here really, really like to hold each other up, drive in
close proximity
> > to each other, and be generally annoying.
>
> And every last one these drivers in the left lane causing the clump
thinks,
> 'if someone wants to pass, they can pass me on the right'.

And every last one of those drivers in the right lane causing the clump
thinks, 'if someone wants to pass, the can pass me on the left', which
was equally untrue.

So, other than being blatently wrong (again - people were driving _next
to_ each other, so there wasn't going to be anyone passing anyone),
what's _your_ point?

Brent P wrote:
> In article >, Dave Head
wrote:
>
> > What's the point? I dunno - prolly none, other than it shows that
people
> > 'round here really, really like to hold each other up, drive in
close proximity
> > to each other, and be generally annoying.
>
> And every last one these drivers in the left lane causing the clump
thinks,
> 'if someone wants to pass, they can pass me on the right'.

And every last one of those drivers in the right lane causing the clump
thinks, 'if someone wants to pass, the can pass me on the left', which
was equally untrue.

So, other than being blatently wrong (again - people were driving _next
to_ each other, so there wasn't going to be anyone passing anyone),
what's _your_ point?

In article .com>, wrote:
>> And every last one these drivers in the left lane causing the clump thinks,
>> 'if someone wants to pass, they can pass me on the right'.
>
> And every last one of those drivers in the right lane causing the clump
> thinks, 'if someone wants to pass, the can pass me on the left', which
> was equally untrue.

You don't seem to understand what the convention is.

> So, other than being blatently wrong (again - people were driving _next
> to_ each other, so there wasn't going to be anyone passing anyone),
> what's _your_ point?

The rule is keep right except to pass. That's how it works. That is the
convention that trumps your weaving through traffic nonsense. And that's
what passing traffic would have to do if they weren't next to each other,
weave through. Keep right except to pass allows for a smooth traffic
flow without such weaving nonsense.

In article .com>, wrote:
>> And every last one these drivers in the left lane causing the clump thinks,
>> 'if someone wants to pass, they can pass me on the right'.
>
> And every last one of those drivers in the right lane causing the clump
> thinks, 'if someone wants to pass, the can pass me on the left', which
> was equally untrue.

You don't seem to understand what the convention is.

> So, other than being blatently wrong (again - people were driving _next
> to_ each other, so there wasn't going to be anyone passing anyone),
> what's _your_ point?

The rule is keep right except to pass. That's how it works. That is the
convention that trumps your weaving through traffic nonsense. And that's
what passing traffic would have to do if they weren't next to each other,
weave through. Keep right except to pass allows for a smooth traffic
flow without such weaving nonsense.

Brent P wrote:
> In article .com>,
wrote:
> >> And every last one these drivers in the left lane causing the
clump thinks,
> >> 'if someone wants to pass, they can pass me on the right'.
> >
> > And every last one of those drivers in the right lane causing the
clump
> > thinks, 'if someone wants to pass, the can pass me on the left',
which
> > was equally untrue.
>
> You don't seem to understand what the convention is.

I understand it - I just don't think it makes a lot of sense.

>
> > So, other than being blatently wrong (again - people were driving
_next
> > to_ each other, so there wasn't going to be anyone passing anyone),
> > what's _your_ point?
>
> The rule is keep right except to pass. That's how it works. That is
the
> convention that trumps your weaving through traffic nonsense. And
that's
> what passing traffic would have to do if they weren't next to each
other,
> weave through. Keep right except to pass allows for a smooth traffic

> flow without such weaving nonsense.

How is what you describe going to cut down on weaving thru traffic? If
someone is keeping right, and then jumping into the left lane every
time they catch another car that is going slower, and then jumping back
into the right lane again, how is that not weaving? Its continuous
weaving. Back, forth. Back, forth. Back, forth. Ad nasueum...

Brent P wrote:
> In article .com>,
wrote:
> >> And every last one these drivers in the left lane causing the
clump thinks,
> >> 'if someone wants to pass, they can pass me on the right'.
> >
> > And every last one of those drivers in the right lane causing the
clump
> > thinks, 'if someone wants to pass, the can pass me on the left',
which
> > was equally untrue.
>
> You don't seem to understand what the convention is.

I understand it - I just don't think it makes a lot of sense.

>
> > So, other than being blatently wrong (again - people were driving
_next
> > to_ each other, so there wasn't going to be anyone passing anyone),
> > what's _your_ point?
>
> The rule is keep right except to pass. That's how it works. That is
the
> convention that trumps your weaving through traffic nonsense. And
that's
> what passing traffic would have to do if they weren't next to each
other,
> weave through. Keep right except to pass allows for a smooth traffic

> flow without such weaving nonsense.

How is what you describe going to cut down on weaving thru traffic? If
someone is keeping right, and then jumping into the left lane every
time they catch another car that is going slower, and then jumping back
into the right lane again, how is that not weaving? Its continuous
weaving. Back, forth. Back, forth. Back, forth. Ad nasueum...

In article .com>, wrote:

> Brent P wrote:

>> You don't seem to understand what the convention is.

> I understand it - I just don't think it makes a lot of sense.

So you think having passing traffic weave through traffic is better or
are you one of the Claybrook followers who believe that the weaving is
safer because it 'slows speeders'?

> How is what you describe going to cut down on weaving thru traffic? If
> someone is keeping right, and then jumping into the left lane every
> time they catch another car that is going slower, and then jumping back
> into the right lane again, how is that not weaving? Its continuous
> weaving. Back, forth. Back, forth. Back, forth. Ad nasueum...

You don't jump back and forth. You pass, then you finish passing and
return to the right. Some time in the future you'll pass someone else.
But the frequency of changing lanes is greatly reduced. This is very
simple stuff.