Clump

Around 1/13/2005 12:52 PM, wrote:

> 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...

You seem to believe it.


>>>the more dangerous lane,
>>
>>In your mind only, my naïve padawan.
>
>
> No, its true.

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

Yeah, but that has very little to do with safety. KRETP, OTOH, is an
important factor in making driving safer.

>>>>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.

So? Who cares? Changing lanes is an integral part of driving.

If you're so afraid of changing lanes, keep to the right and you'll
rarely have to change lanes, except for those oddball left exits.


>>>>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.

Clearly you have not, or we wouldn't be having this discussion.


>>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.

Then you haven't really tried.



--
~/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)

wrote in
oups.com:

>
> 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,

Actually,the leftmost lane is the most "dangerous".8-)
That's where most of the out-of-control vehicles from oncoming traffic end
up smacking into opposing traffic.Also where the fastest traffic is found.


> 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.

You and Head are using this (wrongly)as justification for LLBing.
For your laziness.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

wrote in
oups.com:

>
> 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,

Actually,the leftmost lane is the most "dangerous".8-)
That's where most of the out-of-control vehicles from oncoming traffic end
up smacking into opposing traffic.Also where the fastest traffic is found.


> 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.

You and Head are using this (wrongly)as justification for LLBing.
For your laziness.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 19:24:49 -0800, Scott en Aztlán
> wrote:

>On 13 Jan 2005 09:06:58 -0800, wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>Dave? 'Zat you?

Ya.
>
>Why the nymshift?

When I'm not at my regular computer I post thru Google, and that's the way it
comes out.

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 19:24:49 -0800, Scott en Aztlán
> wrote:

>On 13 Jan 2005 09:06:58 -0800, wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>Dave? 'Zat you?

Ya.
>
>Why the nymshift?

When I'm not at my regular computer I post thru Google, and that's the way it
comes out.

On 14 Jan 2005 02:21:38 GMT, Jim Yanik .> wrote:

wrote in
roups.com:
>
>>
>> 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,
>
>Actually,the leftmost lane is the most "dangerous".8-)
>That's where most of the out-of-control vehicles from oncoming traffic end
>up smacking into opposing traffic.

Extremely, incredibly rare. But cops and hitchikers and bicyclists (AT NITE!
WITHOUT LIGHTS!!!), and other pedestrians, and disabled vehicles which may or
may not be all the way off the road... are not.

>Also where the fastest traffic is found.

Yeah. I'm usually one of 'em.

>> 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.
>
>You and Head

We're the same, posting thru different computers.

>are using this (wrongly)as justification for LLBing.
>For your laziness.

What makes more sense - I take a 2000 mile trip and encounter 2000 cars, and
with me at the 90th percentile, I stay right and make 1800 jumps from right
lane to left lane and back to right lane, shortening my own following distances
and those of the others as I move back into the right lane, or stay left, and
let 200 other cars (that probably shouldn't be going that fast anyway),which I
encounter at the density of about 1 every 10 miles, pass on the right?

It just doesn't make any sense to be jumping back and forth like a dandelion
seed in a hurricane.

On 14 Jan 2005 02:21:38 GMT, Jim Yanik .> wrote:

wrote in
roups.com:
>
>>
>> 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,
>
>Actually,the leftmost lane is the most "dangerous".8-)
>That's where most of the out-of-control vehicles from oncoming traffic end
>up smacking into opposing traffic.

Extremely, incredibly rare. But cops and hitchikers and bicyclists (AT NITE!
WITHOUT LIGHTS!!!), and other pedestrians, and disabled vehicles which may or
may not be all the way off the road... are not.

>Also where the fastest traffic is found.

Yeah. I'm usually one of 'em.

>> 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.
>
>You and Head

We're the same, posting thru different computers.

>are using this (wrongly)as justification for LLBing.
>For your laziness.

What makes more sense - I take a 2000 mile trip and encounter 2000 cars, and
with me at the 90th percentile, I stay right and make 1800 jumps from right
lane to left lane and back to right lane, shortening my own following distances
and those of the others as I move back into the right lane, or stay left, and
let 200 other cars (that probably shouldn't be going that fast anyway),which I
encounter at the density of about 1 every 10 miles, pass on the right?

It just doesn't make any sense to be jumping back and forth like a dandelion
seed in a hurricane.

Dave Head wrote:

> and those of the others as I move back into the right lane, or stay left, and
> let 200 other cars (that probably shouldn't be going that fast anyway),which I

that ain't your call to make, unless you're a cop.

> encounter at the density of about 1 every 10 miles, pass on the right?
>

No. At a bare minimum, you move right to let the faster traffic pass.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Dave Head wrote:

> and those of the others as I move back into the right lane, or stay left, and
> let 200 other cars (that probably shouldn't be going that fast anyway),which I

that ain't your call to make, unless you're a cop.

> encounter at the density of about 1 every 10 miles, pass on the right?
>

No. At a bare minimum, you move right to let the faster traffic pass.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 23:13:58 -0500, Nate Nagel > wrote:

>Dave Head wrote:
>
>> and those of the others as I move back into the right lane, or stay left, and
>> let 200 other cars (that probably shouldn't be going that fast anyway),which I
>
>that ain't your call to make, unless you're a cop.
>
>> encounter at the density of about 1 every 10 miles, pass on the right?
>>
>
>No. At a bare minimum, you move right to let the faster traffic pass.

If he flashes, I will. If he sounds the horn, I will. But not if he
cluelessly rolls up on my bumper at a 2 mph differential, indicating that in
all liklihood, if I get over, he'll just go duckling on my left rear wheel.

>
>nate