<skqu...@speakeasy.net> wrote: >["Followup-To:" header set to misc.transport.road; talk.politics.misc >and alt.true-crime removed.] >begin quotation > from Laura Bush murdered her boy friend <xeton2...@yahoo.com> > in message <1147830799.669974.245...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> > posted at 2006-05-17T01:53
>> Mike T. wrote: >>> "Scott O. Kuznicki" <scottkuzni...@midwestroads.com> wrote in message >>> news:fr9k62h1bil670vqb0ol7ocidnt6dqq5fi@4ax.com... >>> > Maybe I'm dense, but what does "///" mean in that sentence?
>>> In certain countries, it is a speed limit sign which means NO speed limit. >>> :) -Dave
>> Well hell - let's legalize rape and murder while we're at it. WTF is >> wrong with you.??? Why do you like to kill and maim people with your >> car?
>In countries without set numeric speed limits on some roads, those roads >*still* have all other traffic laws in place, including those against >reckless driving, following too closely, and even the basic speed law >(too fast for conditions).
>Granted, I don't think the US will be ready for /// for some time. >I personally would probably not exceed 80 mi/h (~130 km/h) in perfect >conditions even on roads posted ///.
Oh yes you would. Other people would be doing 100 mph and like the dumb sheep you are, you'd feel like you "have" to do the same.
In article <OpmdndKkMPLBJPbZnZ2dnUVZ_uidn...@speakeasy.net>, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: > Granted, I don't think the US will be ready for /// for some time.
Effectively, that is what we have many places right now. The big things keeping 85th percentile speeds at ~80mph is the large number of undisciplined drivers, traffic, and road surface conditions.
Enforcement of the underposted speed limits in most cases is quite a ways down the list.
> I personally would probably not exceed 80 mi/h (~130 km/h) in perfect > conditions even on roads posted ///.
Given US drivers I have to share the roads with, that's about where I top out as well. However, on the autobahn, crusing at 90-100mph is very comfortable.
> >Granted, I don't think the US will be ready for /// for some time. > >I personally would probably not exceed 80 mi/h (~130 km/h) in perfect > >conditions even on roads posted ///.
> Oh yes you would. Other people would be doing 100 mph and like the > dumb sheep you are, you'd feel like you "have" to do the same.
Well, I certainly don't allow anyone to intimidate me into driving faster than I'm comfortable with. Can't see why anyone else should either.
N8N wrote: >You are aware of the studies (links posted elsewhere in this thread) >that show that outside of areas with grossly underposted speed limits >combined with heavy enforcement activities, changing the speed limit >has minimal effect on actual travel speeds, yes?
Not personally, though I understand that studies which support one's own opinion are generally rated as good studies. ;<)
Maybe what the study shows is that, if the limit is high enough, and enforcement low enough, people will drive at whatever speed they want. In which case, sure, changing the limit might have no effect.
I also suspect that the number of people who think they can handle high speeds far surpasses the number who really can. Strangely, it seems that a huge proportion of folks in their late teens and early twenties, who by definition have limited experience, think they can handle the high speeds. Folks in their mid-years, who are still not old enough to generally have much degraded skills, seem to mellow as their real experience teaches them that it's the unexpected that causes the problem. i.e., they can handl their own vehicle, until some clown bumps them, or there's a blowout, etc.
And in the news, Phoenix has the second highest rating for rude driving (or was it road rage? I can't remember; same thing). I couldn't argue with that at all. People won't let others merge, etc. I saw someone today non-chalantly driving on the shoulder in stopped traffic to pass everyone else at the highway exit, and just pull in front of some startled other person. The driver later went to the shopping center... So few people are nice any more.
>> >Granted, I don't think the US will be ready for /// for some time. >> >I personally would probably not exceed 80 mi/h (~130 km/h) in perfect >> >conditions even on roads posted ///.
>> Oh yes you would. Other people would be doing 100 mph and like the >> dumb sheep you are, you'd feel like you "have" to do the same.
>Well, I certainly don't allow anyone to intimidate me into driving faster than I'm >comfortable with. Can't see why anyone else should either.
Oh hell - you hear it all the time. Idiots say "If i do the SL, i get run off the road." Not only is that a cowardly thing to say it's not even true. I've driven the SL or less all my life and nobody does a thing to me.
> On Thu, 18 May 2006 03:14:06 +0100, Pooh Bear > <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:>
> >> >Granted, I don't think the US will be ready for /// for some time. > >> >I personally would probably not exceed 80 mi/h (~130 km/h) in perfect > >> >conditions even on roads posted ///.
> >> Oh yes you would. Other people would be doing 100 mph and like the > >> dumb sheep you are, you'd feel like you "have" to do the same.
> >Well, I certainly don't allow anyone to intimidate me into driving faster than I'm > >comfortable with. Can't see why anyone else should either.
> Oh hell - you hear it all the time. Idiots say "If i do the SL, i > get run off the road."
Not in this country you don't. Maybe we're more polite to ppl driving a few under the SL ? I do get annoyed by those who are 20 under on a single carriageway road with little overtaking opportunites though.
>>You are aware of the studies (links posted elsewhere in this thread) >>that show that outside of areas with grossly underposted speed limits >>combined with heavy enforcement activities, changing the speed limit >>has minimal effect on actual travel speeds, yes?
> Not personally, though I understand that studies which support one's > own opinion are generally rated as good studies. ;<)
> Maybe what the study shows is that, if the limit is high enough, and > enforcement low enough, people will drive at whatever speed they want. > In which case, sure, changing the limit might have no effect.
> I also suspect that the number of people who think they can handle high > speeds far surpasses the number who really can. Strangely, it seems > that a huge proportion of folks in their late teens and early twenties, > who by definition have limited experience, think they can handle the > high speeds. Folks in their mid-years, who are still not old enough to > generally have much degraded skills, seem to mellow as their real > experience teaches them that it's the unexpected that causes the > problem. i.e., they can handl their own vehicle, until some clown > bumps them, or there's a blowout, etc.
> And in the news, Phoenix has the second highest rating for rude driving > (or was it road rage? I can't remember; same thing). I couldn't argue > with that at all. People won't let others merge, etc.
PEOPLE WON'T LET OTHERS MERGE???
all right, I'm going to stop reading now. People who think it's the responsibility of through traffic to let them in should have their driver's licenses shredded. Nothing to see here, move along now.
nate
I saw someone
> today non-chalantly driving on the shoulder in stopped traffic to pass > everyone else at the highway exit, and just pull in front of some > startled other person. The driver later went to the shopping center... > So few people are nice any more.
>>>>>Granted, I don't think the US will be ready for /// for some time. >>>>>I personally would probably not exceed 80 mi/h (~130 km/h) in perfect >>>>>conditions even on roads posted ///.
>>>>Oh yes you would. Other people would be doing 100 mph and like the >>>>dumb sheep you are, you'd feel like you "have" to do the same.
>>>Well, I certainly don't allow anyone to intimidate me into driving faster than I'm >>>comfortable with. Can't see why anyone else should either.
>> Oh hell - you hear it all the time. Idiots say "If i do the SL, i >>get run off the road."
> Not in this country you don't. Maybe we're more polite to ppl driving a few under the > SL ? I do get annoyed by those who are 20 under on a single carriageway road with > little overtaking opportunites though.
> Graham
It's not that you're more polite, you probably have more reasonable speed limits and/or stricter enforcement. Over here even the rightmost lane is probably doing a minimum of 10 over outside of rush hour so a driver actually following the speed limit - and they never stay in the right lane, either - is a serious impediment to traffic.
Even if one attempts to be legal yet polite and to the SL in the rightmost lane, one will be inadvertantly tailgated by the people trying to pass slow traffic in the left lane. LLBers are everywhere here, and it's usually a safe assumption that the right lane will be mostly empty. Weird but true.
In article <e4hfpj02...@news3.newsguy.com>, Nate Nagel wrote: > PEOPLE WON'T LET OTHERS MERGE???
> all right, I'm going to stop reading now. People who think it's the > responsibility of through traffic to let them in should have their > driver's licenses shredded.
Amen.
I am so sick of people who think that merging into 70-80mph traffic at 35-40mph is acceptable, the fact they must do it in front of me even worse.
"Brent P" <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote
> In article <e4hfpj02...@news3.newsguy.com>, Nate Nagel wrote:
>> PEOPLE WON'T LET OTHERS MERGE???
>> all right, I'm going to stop reading now. People who think it's the >> responsibility of through traffic to let them in should have their >> driver's licenses shredded.
> Amen.
> I am so sick of people who think that merging into 70-80mph traffic at > 35-40mph is acceptable, the fact they must do it in front of me even > worse.
Actually, the precise complaint was a little different: "5. Obnoxious drivers who speed up to keep you from changing lanes (Gap Snatchers)".
>> On Thu, 18 May 2006 03:14:06 +0100, Pooh Bear >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:>
>> >> >Granted, I don't think the US will be ready for /// for some time. >> >> >I personally would probably not exceed 80 mi/h (~130 km/h) in perfect >> >> >conditions even on roads posted ///.
>> >> Oh yes you would. Other people would be doing 100 mph and like the >> >> dumb sheep you are, you'd feel like you "have" to do the same.
>> >Well, I certainly don't allow anyone to intimidate me into driving faster than I'm >> >comfortable with. Can't see why anyone else should either.
>> Oh hell - you hear it all the time. Idiots say "If i do the SL, i >> get run off the road."
>Not in this country you don't. Maybe we're more polite to ppl driving a few under the >SL ? I do get annoyed by those who are 20 under on a single carriageway road with >little overtaking opportunites though.
20 under??? Even i don't do that and i don't think anyone else does. More lies from you.
One example: "Nothing makes him crazier than this classic move: Drivers in the freeway fast lane who refuse to go fast, letting traffic pile up behind them. "The culture is kind of this childish, 'I'm going to stick by the book,' " he said. That's the worst form of passive-aggressive motoring, said Leon James, a psychology professor at the University of Hawaii who studies driving. "The person is breaking all the rules and creating a traffic danger point, forcing others to go into the right lane to pass them," James said. "That one driver will upset hundreds of drivers in one minute. That's dangerous and selfish."
> One example: "Nothing makes him crazier than this classic move: Drivers in > the freeway fast lane who refuse to go fast, letting traffic pile up behind > them. "The culture is kind of this childish, 'I'm going to stick by the > book,' " he said. > That's the worst form of passive-aggressive motoring, said Leon James, a > psychology professor at the University of Hawaii who studies driving. "The > person is breaking all the rules and creating a traffic danger point, > forcing others to go into the right lane to pass them," James said. "That > one driver will upset hundreds of drivers in one minute. That's dangerous > and selfish."
> FloydR
I'm not a big Leon James fan, but that statement I will agree with.
> On Wed, 17 May 2006 19:01:32 -0500, "Shawn K. Quinn" > <skqu...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>["Followup-To:" header set to misc.transport.road; talk.politics.misc >>and alt.true-crime removed.] >>begin quotation >> from Laura Bush murdered her boy friend <xeton2...@yahoo.com> >> in message <1147830799.669974.245...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> >> posted at 2006-05-17T01:53
>>> Mike T. wrote: >>>> "Scott O. Kuznicki" <scottkuzni...@midwestroads.com> wrote in message >>>> news:fr9k62h1bil670vqb0ol7ocidnt6dqq5fi@4ax.com... >>>> > Maybe I'm dense, but what does "///" mean in that sentence?
>>>> In certain countries, it is a speed limit sign which means NO speed >>>> limit. >>>> :) -Dave
>>> Well hell - let's legalize rape and murder while we're at it. WTF is >>> wrong with you.??? Why do you like to kill and maim people with your >>> car?
>>In countries without set numeric speed limits on some roads, those roads >>*still* have all other traffic laws in place, including those against >>reckless driving, following too closely, and even the basic speed law >>(too fast for conditions).
>>Granted, I don't think the US will be ready for /// for some time. >>I personally would probably not exceed 80 mi/h (~130 km/h) in perfect >>conditions even on roads posted ///.
> Oh yes you would. Other people would be doing 100 mph and like the > dumb sheep you are, you'd feel like you "have" to do the same.
On what information do you base this baseless conclusion you ignorant twit?
Just because you are as you say a "sheep" that doesn't mean the rest of us are.
Again you prove your lack of ability to use your brain before you subject the rest of us to your CROSSPOSTED drivel.
> On Thu, 18 May 2006 03:14:06 +0100, Pooh Bear > <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:>
>>> >Granted, I don't think the US will be ready for /// for some time. >>> >I personally would probably not exceed 80 mi/h (~130 km/h) in perfect >>> >conditions even on roads posted ///.
>>> Oh yes you would. Other people would be doing 100 mph and like the >>> dumb sheep you are, you'd feel like you "have" to do the same.
>>Well, I certainly don't allow anyone to intimidate me into driving faster >>than I'm >>comfortable with. Can't see why anyone else should either.
> Oh hell - you hear it all the time. Idiots say "If i do the SL, i > get run off the road." Not only is that a cowardly thing to say it's > not even true. I've driven the SL or less all my life and nobody does > a thing to me.
> On Thu, 18 May 2006 06:25:06 +0100, Pooh Bear > <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:
>>> On Thu, 18 May 2006 03:14:06 +0100, Pooh Bear >>> <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> >laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:>
>>> >> >Granted, I don't think the US will be ready for /// for some time. >>> >> >I personally would probably not exceed 80 mi/h (~130 km/h) in >>> >> >perfect >>> >> >conditions even on roads posted ///.
>>> >> Oh yes you would. Other people would be doing 100 mph and like the >>> >> dumb sheep you are, you'd feel like you "have" to do the same.
>>> >Well, I certainly don't allow anyone to intimidate me into driving >>> >faster than I'm >>> >comfortable with. Can't see why anyone else should either.
>>> Oh hell - you hear it all the time. Idiots say "If i do the SL, i >>> get run off the road."
>>Not in this country you don't. Maybe we're more polite to ppl driving a >>few under the >>SL ? I do get annoyed by those who are 20 under on a single carriageway >>road with >>little overtaking opportunites though.
> 20 under??? Even i don't do that and i don't think anyone else does. > More lies from you.
you blithering twit the man appears to be in the UK, have you ever been there? If not then you are agian spewing drivel out of your ass.
I have been tehre and occasionally the situation he describes occured to me so I am sure he sees it more often as he has a higher exposure.
> 20 under??? Even i don't do that and i don't think anyone else does. > More lies from you.
That's funny. A retard calling someone a liar. Have you ever considered a stand up act? You might find it's something you won't be a complete failure at.
Fallen for any more april fool's jokes, moron? :))
>One example: "Nothing makes him crazier than this classic move: Drivers in >the freeway fast lane who refuse to go fast, letting traffic pile up behind >them. "The culture is kind of this childish, 'I'm going to stick by the >book,' " he said. >That's the worst form of passive-aggressive motoring, said Leon James, a >psychology professor at the University of Hawaii who studies driving. "The >person is breaking all the rules and creating a traffic danger point, >forcing others to go into the right lane to pass them," James said. "That >one driver will upset hundreds of drivers in one minute. That's dangerous >and selfish."
Brent P wrote: >Nate Nagel wrote: >> PEOPLE WON'T LET OTHERS MERGE??? >> all right, I'm going to stop reading now. People who think it's the >> responsibility of through traffic to let them in should have their >> driver's licenses shredded. >Amen. >I am so sick of people who think that merging into 70-80mph traffic at >35-40mph is acceptable, the fact they must do it in front of me even worse.
Oh, we've all seen that, and I have the same opinion of that stunt as you do. Either get going or get off. However, that isn't quite the thing I was thinking of....
For example, in Colorado, there is/was a very busy 287 (think that's the number) between Loveland and Longmont. It has one lane each way, separated by a stripe of paint. Since is was for years a country/farm type road, the uphill sides frequently had a pull-over lane to allow tractors and slow trucks to go to the right to allow normal or faster traffic to pass. So far so good, but the neighborhood grew and it got busy busy busy. Well, me not wanting to get one of the tickets, and besides being a generally law-abiding type, I usually moved to the right to allow the beemers from Boulder to do their arrogant 65 to 70 in a 55 road. (55 was absolutely fine there--driveways, livestock, crossroads, etc.). But more and more frequently, the nice high-speed people stopped letting the polite slower--at the legal limit--traffic merge back in. It wasn't an issue of speeding up. It was an issue of all the center lane traffic going bumper to bumper to prevent you from getting in at any speed. Well, screw that. After nearly getting run of the road when the slow lane ended, because those rude high-speed drivers prevented a re-merge after I was so polite to move to the right (as the speeders so eloquently demand...), and while carrying a van load of school kids to boot, I just bagged the whole deal. I stayed in the straight lane, went to about +5 to keep a couple of them off my tail, and stayed there. Made some mad I suppose, but I wasn't going to get run off the road because of their MFFY attitude (more like Me First Kill You).
It's pretty much the same here, when the traffic gets built up. A lane ends, but the wonderful folks in the straight-through won't let you in. We aren't talking speed here; we're talking about stop'n'crawl on regular roads, narrowing to a single lane. Blocking others drivers out is just plain rude and crude.
As far as "responsibility to let others merge".... Maybe it's responsibility, mabye it's not. But it sure makes life easier in busy traffic, including freeways, to just back off a bit, or speed up a bit, to make the merge easier and safer for all. It's rather arrogant to drive as if it was a major hassle to adjust a little bit to allow things to happen nicely. Sometimes those accelerate/merge lanes end a little short, and we'd all not like to hit the dirt or force someone over. Play nice out there; the world gets crowded at times.
>laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote: >> 20 under??? Even i don't do that and i don't think anyone else does. >> More lies from you.
>That's funny. A retard calling someone a liar. Have you ever considered >a stand up act? You might find it's something you won't be a complete >failure at.
>Fallen for any more april fool's jokes, moron? :))
On 18 May 2006 20:41:31 -0700, websu...@cox.net wrote:
>As far as "responsibility to let others merge".... Maybe it's >responsibility, mabye it's not. But it sure makes life easier in busy >traffic, including freeways, to just back off a bit, or speed up a bit, >to make the merge easier and safer for all.
Actually, it's safest for traffic on the main road to maintain a steady speed, alowing the incoming traffic to correctly predict where to merge. The problem is, incompetent mergers either don't get up to the common speed of traffic before trying to merge, or they drive right next to you expecting you to slow down and let them in, even though there is a perfectly good gap both in front of your car and behind your car.
