Clump

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.

Brent P wrote:
> 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'?

I think passing traffic should jump into the _right_ lane, the more
dangerous lane, and be there only as long as it takes to pass. That
way, most of the traffic would be in the left lane, and _away_ from the
cars that are entering the highway (slowly), and exiting the highway
(slowly) and of course not encountering the various roadside hazards of
cops with stopped victims, hitchikers, stalled cars, and of course have
a better chance with the deer.

>
> > 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.

And that is jumping back and forth, back and forth, etc.

>Some time in the future you'll pass someone else.

And jump back and forth again.

> But the frequency of changing lanes is greatly reduced.

As compared to...?
>This is very simple stuff.

Then why can't you figure it out?

Brent P wrote:
> 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'?

I think passing traffic should jump into the _right_ lane, the more
dangerous lane, and be there only as long as it takes to pass. That
way, most of the traffic would be in the left lane, and _away_ from the
cars that are entering the highway (slowly), and exiting the highway
(slowly) and of course not encountering the various roadside hazards of
cops with stopped victims, hitchikers, stalled cars, and of course have
a better chance with the deer.

>
> > 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.

And that is jumping back and forth, back and forth, etc.

>Some time in the future you'll pass someone else.

And jump back and forth again.

> But the frequency of changing lanes is greatly reduced.

As compared to...?
>This is very simple stuff.

Then why can't you figure it out?

Brent P wrote:
> 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'?

I think passing traffic should jump into the _right_ lane, the more
dangerous lane, and be there only as long as it takes to pass. That
way, most of the traffic would be in the left lane, and _away_ from the
cars that are entering the highway (slowly), and exiting the highway
(slowly) and of course not encountering the various roadside hazards of
cops with stopped victims, hitchikers, stalled cars, and of course have
a better chance with the deer.

>
> > 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.

And that is jumping back and forth, back and forth, etc.

>Some time in the future you'll pass someone else.

And jump back and forth again.

> But the frequency of changing lanes is greatly reduced.

As compared to...?
>This is very simple stuff.

Then why can't you figure it out?

Brent P wrote:
> 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'?

I think passing traffic should jump into the _right_ lane, the more
dangerous lane, and be there only as long as it takes to pass. That
way, most of the traffic would be in the left lane, and _away_ from the
cars that are entering the highway (slowly), and exiting the highway
(slowly) and of course not encountering the various roadside hazards of
cops with stopped victims, hitchikers, stalled cars, and of course have
a better chance with the deer.

>
> > 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.

And that is jumping back and forth, back and forth, etc.

>Some time in the future you'll pass someone else.

And jump back and forth again.

> But the frequency of changing lanes is greatly reduced.

As compared to...?
>This is very simple stuff.

Then why can't you figure it out?

> 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'.

He shoots -- he SCORES!!!!

> 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'.

He shoots -- he SCORES!!!!

Around 1/13/2005 11:35 AM, wrote:
>
> Brent P wrote:
>
>> <snip>
>
> I think passing traffic should jump into the _right_ lane,

Mistake number one, nobody should "jump" anywhere. It should be a smooth
lane change. If you're "jumping" from lane to lane, you're doing
something wrong.

> the more dangerous lane,

In your mind only, my naïve padawan.

> and be there only as long as it takes to pass.

<Willy Wonka> Wait a minute. Strike that. Reverse it.

The law says Keep Right, not Keep Left. If you really want to Keep Left,
I suggest driving in England sometime.

>>You don't jump back and forth. You pass, then you finish passing and
>>return to the right.
>
>
> And that is jumping back and forth, back and forth, etc.

No, that's proper passing.

>>This is very simple stuff.
>
> Then why can't you figure it out?

He has. You're the only one around here that hasn't.

Why do you have a hard time understanding "Keep Right Except to Pass?"
It's not a difficult concept, nor is it difficult to practice.


--
~/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 1/13/2005 11:35 AM, wrote:
>
> Brent P wrote:
>
>> <snip>
>
> I think passing traffic should jump into the _right_ lane,

Mistake number one, nobody should "jump" anywhere. It should be a smooth
lane change. If you're "jumping" from lane to lane, you're doing
something wrong.

> the more dangerous lane,

In your mind only, my naïve padawan.

> and be there only as long as it takes to pass.

<Willy Wonka> Wait a minute. Strike that. Reverse it.

The law says Keep Right, not Keep Left. If you really want to Keep Left,
I suggest driving in England sometime.

>>You don't jump back and forth. You pass, then you finish passing and
>>return to the right.
>
>
> And that is jumping back and forth, back and forth, etc.

No, that's proper passing.

>>This is very simple stuff.
>
> Then why can't you figure it out?

He has. You're the only one around here that hasn't.

Why do you have a hard time understanding "Keep Right Except to Pass?"
It's not a difficult concept, nor is it difficult to practice.


--
~/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)

Garth Almgren wrote:
> Around 1/13/2005 11:35 AM, wrote:
> >
> > Brent P wrote:
> >
> >> <snip>
> >
> > I think passing traffic should jump into the _right_ lane,
>
> Mistake number one, nobody should "jump" anywhere. It should be a
smooth
> lane change. If you're "jumping" from lane to lane, you're doing
> something wrong.

Its just an expression...

>
> > the more dangerous lane,
>
> In your mind only, my na=EFve padawan.

No, its true. The left lane doesn't have near the hazards in it, or in
the immediate transition to the edge, that the right lane does.


> > and be there only as long as it takes to pass.
>
> <Willy Wonka> Wait a minute. Strike that. Reverse it.
>
> The law says Keep Right, not Keep Left. If you really want to Keep
Left,
> I suggest driving in England sometime.

Big whoop. The law says drive 55 mph, or 65 mph, or whatever, too -
nobody follows that either.

> >>You don't jump back and forth. You pass, then you finish passing
and
> >>return to the right.
> >
> >
> > And that is jumping back and forth, back and forth, etc.
>
> No, that's proper passing.

Which still creates a whole pile of lane changes.

> >>This is very simple stuff.
> >
> > Then why can't you figure it out?
>
> He has. You're the only one around here that hasn't.

I'm the only one that _has_ figured it out.

> Why do you have a hard time understanding "Keep Right Except to
Pass?"
> It's not a difficult concept, nor is it difficult to practice.

Its virtually impossible to practice most of the time. Just about time
you're ready to pass someone "properly" there's someone sitting on your
left rear bumper, preventing you from doing it - unless you're willing
to add 10 - 15 mph to an already-illegal speed to do it.