A cure for slow drivers? The Left Lane Drivers want to sell you a sticker.

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

Curtis, you're not reading what I've written very carefully.

I'm not advocating going below the speed limit in the fast lane. I'm saying that IF I'm going the speed limit than I'm allowed to be in the fast lane.

Curtis said that you are only allowed to be in the left lane to PASS, not drive so you didn't read what he said very carefully.

1 Reply

@curtis73,

Thank you, Curtis... very articulately put, and the phenomenon, though you explained it well, still boggles my mind Smile

It's just one of those things that will always confound me.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

If I'm going 65 in a 65 and you roll up behind me going 70 the law is on MY side.

No, it isn't. If the lane is clear on your right, you are obligated to vacate the left lane. Period. It doesn't matter if you are going the speed limit.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

When it comes to idiotic, there is no doubt that given your natural proclivity, you are the expert. However, you are certainly no expert in determining what people's attitudes are. At no time has what i have written in this thread been a rant, and in fact, i have mostly been having fun here with people, pulling legs and taking the piss.

I don't expect you to understand that though, because in terms of your omnibus comprehension (so you would have us believe), you are a legend in your own mind.

That's what you're going with? You're not really an idiot; you were just kidding! Oh, and Bill stupider than you! Laughing

Sometimes you really are pathetic.

Read what Curtis wrote... without your idiotic I’m Setanta and therefore must be right, no matter how obvious it is that I'm wrong bias, and see if you can face the truth.

Very well explained, Curtis. It would require idiocy or illiteracy to deny the truth in what you've written.

1 Reply

@curtis73,

Look, going 80 in a 65 will save you minutes on your commute (if anything). If you get an accident at 80 the liklihood of death increases dramatically.

We need our speed limits to be enforced, and we need fines/penalties that will discourage breaking the law.

10 miles over the speed limit = $1000 fine and a 30 day license suspension, 20 over $5000 and a 90 day suspension. 30 over 1 day in jail, $10,000 fine, 1 year suspended license.

That WOULD save lives.

0 Replies

@CalamityJane,

Since we don't have that extensive drivers training though Jane, we have to enforce the speed limit laws.

Accidents happen a lot in this country, the faster you go the more dangerous the accident is (simple physics here folks).

You're not going to reduce the accident rate quickly (we need to try though, but it will take longer term).

We can fix the speed thing quickly by imposing more severe penalties.

Until it becomes safer to drive (reduction in accident rate), we need to make sure that people aren't flying by at 80/90 mph where fatalities are much more likely.

1 Reply

@Mame,

I meant to pass.

What I'm saying is that if there's people in the middle lane going 60, I'm allowed to pass them going 65, even if the traffic in the passing lane would rather I go 90 like they all were.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

I did not say that you are "stupider" than i am--however, in this response you seem eager to give that impression. Despite what Curtis has to say, is it not true that: "[i am] on the 'slow-down"' bandwagon . . .", nor am i ". . . making incorrect assumptions based on [my] own vigilante ignorance." At no time in this thread have i called for any measures to either force people from driving in the left lane unless they maintain a certain speed, nor have i advocated any draconian measures to curtail the speeds at which people drive. At no time in this thread have i indulged a rant, your snotty and invidious remarks notwithstanding.

I have had two things to say, apart from the fun i had with Mame and others about traffic engineers. I stated that people who drive at high speed very likely do not save any time in their commute, particularly given that once they get on city streets, they are going to be controlled by the timing of traffic lights. I see no reason, no matter what Curtis has to say, to see that as a product of any kind of ignorance, let alone vigilante ignorance. The other thing which i had to say is that traffic engineers (and there is such a profession, and cities and states do employ traffic engineers to design streets and highways, and to design traffic control systems) set up traffic lights and design roadways to control the flow of traffic. Curtis having buzzed around in a helicopter does not alter that fact. Whether or not traffic engineers effective accomplish their purpose does not alter the fact of what they do, and how they hope to accomplish it. All of that passage in my remarks was intended to point out that driving hell bent for leather on the expressway in a commute does little good when you get to the city streets and are at the mercy of the timing of traffic lights.

My point has only been that speeding doesn't really save any time for the reasons i gave, and, having worked in hospital emergency rooms, i know that Maporche is correct about the maiming and killing effect of high speed. I also know that wearing shoulder harnesses and seat belts dramatically reduces the incidents of serious bodily harm and death. Therefore, i consider the enforcement of speed limits and seat belt laws to be a salutary measure. Curtis be damned, i am part of no "slow down" vigilante group. I heartily encourage you, Bill, to always drive at the highest speed you possibly can, and not to wear a seat belt or shoulder harness. I certainly wouldn't wish to curtail your personal freedom.

Your latest idiotic remarks don't really surprise me, though, given that Curtis saw fit to praise your point of view. I'm sure that gave you a rosy glow, and now you want to, once again, lash out at me with your typically vicious and inept style. When you're lashing out at me, though, i advise you to address what i have actually written, as opposed to the feeble straw men which seem to be the only weapon in your rhetorical arsenal.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

Since we don't have that extensive drivers training though Jane, we have to enforce the speed limit laws.

Accidents happen a lot in this country, the faster you go the more dangerous the accident is (simple physics here folks).

You're not going to reduce the accident rate quickly (we need to try though, but it will take longer term).

We can fix the speed thing quickly by imposing more severe penalties.

Until it becomes safer to drive (reduction in accident rate), we need to make sure that people aren't flying by at 80/90 mph where fatalities are much more likely.

How deliberately ignorant can one person be? The speed that kills is the difference in speed between two objects. When vigilante idiots clog up the passing lane; some faster drivers will get angry pass on the right, where slower drivers are more likely to be traveling (because that's where slower drivers who aren't assholes will be). Hence; both the likelihood and the severity of accidents are increased by the asshole clogging up the passing lane in the first place. The fellow passing you in the passing lane presents almost no danger at all. The one who angrily swerves into the center lane to pass a self righteous asshole is a hell of a lot more dangerous and this should be obvious to anyone with a brain in their head. Both the speeder AND the A-hole who failed to yield to faster traffic are responsible when such accidents occur. The victim is the innocent guy who IS following protocol. If you are either the reckless speeder or the A-hole who refuses to yield to him; YOU are making the highways more unsafe. For the self-righteous traffic-clogging asshole to call for the head of the speeder... citing traffic safety as his reason no less; is just another iteration of the pot calling the kettle black.

When your speedometer reads 65, the next guy's might read 60 and the guy after that's might read 70. NO automobile speedometer is ever right for long (because tire wear alters the circumference.) At 65mph; 5 miles an hour seems like quite a lot... and the guy being forced to slow down will frequently get angry at the asshole whose lack of etiquette forces him to slow down. I have trouble believing anyone has NEVER felt this reaction at least a little. Again though; following correct driving etiquette; drivers traveling 55, 57, 59, 61, 63, 65, 70, and 75 can all share the same highway safely, without any of them being unduly aggravated or put in increased danger. Only when some asshole decides that HE ALONE should determine how fast is fast enough, do the dangerous lane changes and passes occur (other than reckless idiots, of course.) YOU, Maporsche, are a more dangerous addition to the road than most of the speeders you hold in such disdain.

0 Replies

For heaven's sake, there are always going to be dickheads who won't get out of the way and dickheads who tailgate. Sometimes you're in a lane you can't get out of and you're going as fast as you deem safe but the dick behind you tailgates. THAT'S unsafe.

My issue is with grandpa who has the steering wheel clutched tightly with both hands and is going 40 in a 65 zone and will NOT MOVE OVER.

The thing to do is to realize you're not going to make him (or anyone else) move over if they don't want to, so just sigh and resign yourself to a slower drive.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Bla, bla, bla. I'm holier than though, perpetually right, never wrong, bla, bla, bla

No Set. You're a self-righteous asshole who, like always, is incapable of admitting your errors. Play Setantimantics with someone who hasn't already learned how pointless it is to highlight your childish bob & weaves and idiotic denials.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

I meant to pass.

What I'm saying is that if there's people in the middle lane going 60, I'm allowed to pass them going 65, even if the traffic in the passing lane would rather I go 90 like they all were.

Of course you are. That is what the passing lane is for. Just get the hell out of it when your pass is complete.

0 Replies

One can see from the nature of your response how little you have to base you nasty attack on--it is certainly not based on what i wrote. At no time have i objected to the thesis that people should not drive slowly in the passing lane--in fact, i pointed out that one of the good things about Canadians drivers is that they habitually get out of the left lane once they have passed. At no time have i advocated harsh measures for speeders. I consider the laws we have to be sufficient. On the other hand, i completely agree with what Maporche has said about the drastic results of accidents which occur when people are driving at high speed.

For once, why don't you try arguing with what i have actually written, as opposed to just launching a vicious personal attack? Had you never lashed out at me, i'd have had nothing to say about what you had written. It's hilarious to see you describe someone else as a self-righteous asshole--i hope you were looking in the mirror when you said that.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Had you never lashed out at me, i'd have had nothing to say about what you had written.

Your standard attempt to rewrite recent history to suit your idiotic argument is denied. This is typical Setantamantic nonsense.

I wrote:

Precisely right. There is no fast lane... and only A-holes behave as if there is.

It is precisely this type of behavior that makes even bigger A-holes succumb to road-rage and drive dangerously aggressive. It also results in frustrated people passing on the right, which is more dangerous for everyone because of the morons who don't have enough sense to get up to speed before merging.

Any way you slice it; driving pokey in the Left Lane is the habit of the North American Selfish Asshole.

Lacking a coherent argument against what I actually wrote you instead chose to use Setanta-semantics and wrote:

Bullshit . . . nothing "makes" anyone behave in a manor which is dangerous to others.

Not only did you A. address me first (contrary to the BS you claim above), but B. you intentionally ducked the point in favor of producing Sentantamantic bullshit. This is your standard MO and the reason arguing with you is a waste of time. When it comes to picking fights, Set; you're a joke. You should stick to writing history where your talents really do shine.

1 Reply

I agree with the general tenor against being pokey in the fast lane, and moving to the lane to the right to make room for speed demons or just plain people who are going faster... whether or not that is state law to yield in that way. However, sometimes highway off ramps take off to the left; at least they do in California; and, on city streets, sometimes one has to turn left. So, I also have sympathy for ma porsche's view of his right to be in that lane while driving at the posted limit - but I look at it as temporary for those turning conditions, and that courtesy and safety should induce people to move over already, if on a busy highway where the majority are going over the limit, some way over. On driving non busy highways in the left lane (passing lane? fast lane? #1 lane?), with, say, a posted limit of 65, and I'm going 71.. if a fast car shows up in my rear view mirror, I'll move right over, and then go back to that lane with a sense of being allowed there. So, I guess my view is condition oriented.

One thing I've noticed on my many state long drives through California (and I can't remember any of those drives I didn't mostly enjoy) is that people have a near compulsive need to be first. Countless are the times I'd be passed for the person to then diminish speed, not in a get-you-back manner, but just to be first in line while still being safe.

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

This is the entire text of my post #3500950, to which you now refer:

Quote:

Quote:
It is precisely this type of behavior that makes even bigger A-holes succumb to road-rage and drive dangerously aggressive.

Bullshit . . . nothing "makes" anyone behave in a manor which is dangerous to others.

It contains no personal remarks, and i did not further comment on what you were writing, nor did you respond to that post of mine. It wasn't a matter of semantics, it is an observation that anyone who behaves in a certain manner because they don't like what someone else is doing, which does not threaten them personally, cannot reasonably be said to have been "made" to do anything. That was a direct and coherent response to a bullshit claim. That was on page 3, and it was not until page 6 that you commented again on me, and it was not a response to this post. It was at that time that you wrote:

Quote:

Unlike Setanta and Map; most states have enough common sense to recognize that driver’s comfort speeds will vary wildly, in various conditions, regardless of what the posted speed limit is. Rather than idiotically pretending this isn't so (like Setanta in his idiotic rant); his much touted "traffic engineers" decided the highways would run smoother if ALL drivers, regardless of their comfort speed followed a simple protocol that makes the highways safer for everyone, regardless of how fast they drive. This can be summed up for any rational person with 5 simple words "slower traffic please keep right".

That has no reference at all to the response i made to the simple-minded contention that slow drivers "make" anyone else dangerously aggressive. There was no personal attack in my response to your claim about what slow drivers "make" anyone else do. But in that post you chose to make sneering personal remarks, and to suggest by inference that i oppose the notion of slower drivers keeping to the right--an inference without foundation, because i wrote nothing of the kind.

So i guess now, if anyone addresses you at all in any response to anything you write, you're authorized to make a vicious personal attack, huh? The first post i linked--mine--and the second post i linked--yours--have no relationship to one another at all.

You're really pathetic in this one, even by your already low, low standards.

0 Replies

The street on which The Girl lives in Toronto leads in a more or less direct line from the nearest subway/bus station to a major east-west thoroughfare in that part of town. Taxi drivers from the subway station used to roar down the street (an entirely residential street) at high speed. People complained, and eventually, the city made the last block before the thoroughfare a one-way street, one-way south, which blocked the street as a route to the thoroughfare. A few of the cab drivers drove against the one-way at first, but a few tickets ended that. People continued, however, to drive way too fast on what is a residential street, so, farther south, the city put in a series of speed bumps. That has had the desired effect, and the street has been designated a "traffic calming" zone.

So, there are times when traffic engineers can be very effective.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Where did you come up with that crap? Have you ever heard of traffic engineers? The traffic lights on city streets are designed by traffic engineers to assure, as much as will be possible, the smooth flow of traffic. On expressways, the speed limits are determined by the available traffic load of the roadway. That these systems are now strained, because drivers (in Canada, as well as in the United States) are out there, one person per vehicle on highways built in the 1950s and -60s is just good reason to slow down, not speed up.

What the hell's your hurry anyway? Is every little thing in your life so important that you have to drive at excessive speed so you can get there 30 seconds sooner?

You're the one who's getting carried away.

This post was confrontational, a contradiction in logic (treating a passing lane as a passing lane is obviously the best way to smooth the flow of traffic), and clearly an endorsement of the "just slow down" rebuttal of Maps... as was the general tone of all your posts here. Setantamantics won't change this now and I'm not going to bother doing lots of quotes, that would serve only to further derail the topic while you grew increasingly belligerent and made a bigger and bigger ass of yourself, like you always do.

If you think that post was clever or funny; you're wrong. Look at Mame's response.
If you think it was serious and compelling; you're wrong. Look at everyone but Map's response.
If you think you're fooling anyone with your standard Setantamantics; you're wrong. You are simply making a further ass of yourself. But what else is new? You behave in this same childish fashion pretty much every time you don't feel sufficiently deferred to.
Good day!

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

That post was addressed to Mame, and not to you. When it became clear to me that Mame was taking offense, i pointed out to her that i was pulling her leg, and the nickel eventually dropped for her, and she responded in like kind. The point about traffic engineering was that speed limits are not arbitrary--they are always adopted for what someone in government considers a good reason, whether or not events prove them to have been correct. It was offered in support of my remarks to the effects that speeding during a commute does little or no good once the commuter is on city streets and subject to the control of traffic lights.

The post had nothing at all to do with the subject of passing lanes. As i pointed out more than once, i've written nothing to take a position on passing lanes, apart form praising Canadian drivers because they use passing lanes sensibly, which can hardly be construed as a condemnation of treating passing lanes as passing lanes.

Your rhetorical skills are piss poor, and nothing shows it more than your rants here. Your initial personal attack on me had nothing to do with the series of exchanges between Mame and I, and took place after i had realized that she had taken offense, and had been at pains to let her know i was kidding around. Nevertheless, i consider it bullshit to claim that anyone else's driving "makes" someone drive in an aggressive or reckless manner--that's a stupid claim. Tell ya what, next time you're out in public, and someone's behavior offends you, start a fist fight, and when the police arrive, tell 'em the guy pissed you off, and "made" you attack him. Then fight it in court, and tell your lawyer that your defense is that the other guy "made" you do it. For your sake, i hope your pockets are deep.

I also consider it bullshit to claim that speed limits are arbitrary. I have not claimed that traffic engineers are universally effective, nor that speed limits are solely determined by traffic engineers. That doesn't mean that speed limits are arbitrarily determined upon.

There are no semantics here. I don't object to anyone disagreeing with me. By the same token, if i disagree with someone, i will say so. And when someone indulges in name-calling (as you did, and you initiated it), and when someone attempts to take me on with straw men, by arguing against what i patently have not written, i will point that out, too.

You have no argument, you have only vicious personal attacks, and pathetic straw men. You're fooling no one; you're just making more of an ass of yourself.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

The only thing funnier than your incessant denial, is that you actually think your BS hasn’t been exposed (for the hundredth time). Enjoy your fantasy, Set. Happy Holidays!

0 Replies

A cure for slow drivers? The Left Lane Drivers want to sell you a sticker.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know