For all you who love to drive in the left lane....(long)
AnnE Austin
By BILL MAXWELL
© St. Petersburg Times, published July 5, 2000
During my most recent trip on Interstate 75, I witnessed one serious wreck,
several near collisions, and I sensed a whole lot of road rage around me. All of
these incidents and behaviors were caused by the same thing: stubborn SLOW POKES
in the left lane.
Anyone who drives an interstate highway recognizes these motorists, zombies
who plop themselves down in the passing lane and refuse to budge -- no matter
what. Even when clearly posted signs say something like "Slower Traffic Keep to
the Right," they plod ahead.
I always wonder about these people -- the number of wrecks, injuries and
fatalities they cause each year. I also wonder why state troopers do not haul
them off the road more often and at least give them a harsh rebuke. A ticket
would be better, of course.
On my return trip from Gainesville last weekend, I focused on a few left-lane
plodders. One man, with five elderly passengers, drove in the passing lane from
the Micanopy exit to the last Ocala exit. More than 40 vehicles, including
tractor trailers, piled up behind him.
He did not move over until a bright-red Peterbilt pulled alongside, whereupon
the angry trucker unleashed profanities, blasts of the horn and obscene finger
gestures. After the truck pulled back, the shakened car driver moved to the
nearest right lane and finally all the way over.
Voila! Traffic began to flow smoothly. I always have suspected that left-lane
dawdlers are a highway menace, and research confirms my suspicions.
Earlier this year, the Minnesota Legislature passed a bill letting motorists
know that, where possible, vehicles should be in the right-hand lane unless
overtaking slower vehicles. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, impeding the flow of traffic is illegal in most states, meaning
that drivers can be cited for blocking other motorists, including speeders.
As of October 1999, 21 states had laws reserving the left lane for passing.
In other words, "Pass or Get Right." The left lane is not to be used for
continuous travel.
Officials worry about the left-lane bunch because road rage is the biggest
cause of accidents on major highways, and slow pokes incite the most road rage,
according to the American Automobile Association.
The Colorado State Patrol estimates that slow pokes in the passing lane
caused nearly 5,000 wrecks in that state alone in 1999. Since then, troopers
have cracked down on what they call "passive-aggressive" motorists, those who
keep exactly the posted speed in the left lane, forcing faster drivers to pass
them on the right.
In a Denver Rocky Mountain News article, Colorado State patrol spokesman Maj.
Guy King said, "Passive-aggressive drivers have their own agenda: They want to
do what's right and impose the speed limit on other drivers. That's not a bad
thing until it creates a hazardous situation on the road."
Stephanie Faul, spokeswoman for the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety in
Washington agrees: "(People in the left lane think) they're enforcing the law
for people behind them. It infuriates the person behind them. There are always
people who feel they have the right to obey the law, and they do. But the issue
of obeying the law is secondary to the primary issue that you're endangering
life."
Many readers will accuse me of counterintuition, of advocating speeding.
Rubish. I am not advocating speeding or breaking the law. I am pointing out that
tens of thousands of natives and tourists in Florida drive unintelligently.
Common sense says that if other vehicles are stacked up behind you, get out of
the way. Common sense says that you cannot single-handedly enforce the speed
limit. Common sense says let the troopers enforce the law.
Yes, we have the right to drive slower than the regular flow of traffic. But
we do not have the right to impede the flow of traffic. Left-lane rogues do not
have the right to endanger the lives of other people because of their personal
agendas. Simply stated, moving out of the way of fellow motorists is common
sense -- and common courtesy.
I like what Minnesota state Sen. Dick Day, a former trucker, said after the
Senate passed the left-lane bill: "If you want to be a fascist and say, "I own
the road; I'm going to sit here forever,' that's crazy. I know people who are
going to say this allows people to go faster than the speed limit. And some
people are going to go a little faster. But if you're a person who wants to go
60, move over to the right and let them go. Don't worry about them. Turn on the
radio and enjoy yourself. The other guy is the one who's going to get the
ticket."
None of this is rocket science. Just common sense.
Scott Smith
>Left lane is no place for slowpokes
>By BILL MAXWELL
>© St. Petersburg Times, published July 5, 2000
>
> During my most recent trip on Interstate 75, I witnessed one serious wreck,
>several near collisions, and I sensed a whole lot of road rage around me. All of
>these incidents and behaviors were caused by the same thing: stubborn SLOW POKES
>in the left lane.
>
> Anyone who drives an interstate highway recognizes these motorists, zombies
>who plop themselves down in the passing lane and refuse to budge -- no matter
>what. Even when clearly posted signs say something like "Slower Traffic Keep to
>the Right," they plod ahead.
<snip>
I guess I'm glad to see that it's not just Minnesota that suffers from this
problem. Although, it does appear to be much more of a problem here
than in other states I drive in while traveling, IMO.
I guess there are just some drivers that lack common sense, or are
too stubborn to acknowledge the general rules of the road. That's a
pity, since they could make life out there so much better than it
is now by just paying attention to those simple common sense rules.
Of course, that idea also applies to many things in our communal life
on this planet, and not just left lane driving.
> I like what Minnesota state Sen. Dick Day, a former trucker, said after the
>Senate passed the left-lane bill: "If you want to be a fascist and say, "I own
>the road; I'm going to sit here forever,' that's crazy. I know people who are
>going to say this allows people to go faster than the speed limit. And some
>people are going to go a little faster. But if you're a person who wants to go
>60, move over to the right and let them go. Don't worry about them. Turn on the
>radio and enjoy yourself. The other guy is the one who's going to get the
>ticket."
I personally enjoyed Day's comments as well...too bad they fell mostly on
deaf ears in this state (and in this group).
> None of this is rocket science. Just common sense.
Indeed.
Thanks for posting the article, Anne.
SS
Greg Hencir
wrote:
>(snip)<
>I guess I'm glad to see that it's not just Minnesota that suffers from this
>problem. Although, it does appear to be much more of a problem here
>than in other states I drive in while traveling, IMO.
Driving around southern Utah and northern Arizona this May, we saw
plenty of this and the whole range of other thoughtless driving
habits.
Greg
Scott Smith
>"Scott Smith" <sc...@wwwebworld.com> wrote:
>>
>> I guess there are just some drivers that lack common sense, or are
>> too stubborn to acknowledge the general rules of the road. That's a
>> pity, since they could make life out there so much better than it
>> is now by just paying attention to those simple common sense rules.
>> Of course, that idea also applies to many things in our communal life
>> on this planet, and not just left lane driving.
>
>AFter doing lots of driving lately, I've discovered that when one decides to get
>back into the right lane, it seems to me that I was doing a lot of in and out,
>Scott. I find this to be a far worse scenario as being a safer way to drive.
>eeeeeeeeeee, dig THAT sentence <G> you know what I mean!
No, I don't really know what you mean, Anne. Are you saying that you find
keeping to the right is a safer way to drive, or keeping in the left lane is
safer?
Personally, I think observing the "keep right except when passing"
rule is the right thing to do out there (and before we start this whole
argument anew, yes, I realize there are times when keeping
right is not practical, or even possible, on metro freeways).
SS
AnnE Austin
news:gvg9ms06r936dhg7t...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 06 Jul 2000 16:06:40 GMT, "AnnE Austin" <An...@mn.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >Left lane is no place for slowpokes
> >By BILL MAXWELL
> >© St. Petersburg Times, published July 5, 2000
> >
> > During my most recent trip on Interstate 75, I witnessed one serious
wreck,
> >several near collisions, and I sensed a whole lot of road rage around me. All
of
> >these incidents and behaviors were caused by the same thing: stubborn SLOW
POKES
> >in the left lane.
> >
> > Anyone who drives an interstate highway recognizes these motorists,
zombies
> >who plop themselves down in the passing lane and refuse to budge -- no matter
> >what. Even when clearly posted signs say something like "Slower Traffic Keep
to
> >the Right," they plod ahead.
>
> <snip>
>
> problem. Although, it does appear to be much more of a problem here
> than in other states I drive in while traveling, IMO.
>
> too stubborn to acknowledge the general rules of the road. That's a
> pity, since they could make life out there so much better than it
> is now by just paying attention to those simple common sense rules.
> Of course, that idea also applies to many things in our communal life
> on this planet, and not just left lane driving.
AFter doing lots of driving lately, I've discovered that when one decides to get
back into the right lane, it seems to me that I was doing a lot of in and out,
Scott. I find this to be a far worse scenario as being a safer way to drive.
eeeeeeeeeee, dig THAT sentence <G> you know what I mean!
> > I like what Minnesota state Sen. Dick Day, a former trucker, said after
the
> >Senate passed the left-lane bill: "If you want to be a fascist and say, "I
own
> >the road; I'm going to sit here forever,' that's crazy. I know people who are
> >going to say this allows people to go faster than the speed limit. And some
> >people are going to go a little faster. But if you're a person who wants to
go
> >60, move over to the right and let them go. Don't worry about them. Turn on
the
> >radio and enjoy yourself. The other guy is the one who's going to get the
> >ticket."
>
> I personally enjoyed Day's comments as well...too bad they fell mostly on
> deaf ears in this state (and in this group).
>
> > None of this is rocket science. Just common sense.
>
> Indeed.
>
> Thanks for posting the article, Anne.
>
You're welcome. My computer friend in FL sent it to me! He must think I drive
that way!!<G>
But then he's always sending me crockagator stuff too! LOL
AnnE
AnnE Austin
news:c6kamsgv6h5u1t9dt...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 07 Jul 2000 02:00:24 GMT, "AnnE Austin" <An...@mn.rr.com> wrote:
[snip, snip]
>AFter doing lots of driving lately, I've discovered that when one decides to
get
> >back into the right lane, it seems to me that I was doing a lot of in and
out,
> >Scott. I find this to be a far worse scenario as being a safer way to
drive.
> >eeeeeeeeeee, dig THAT sentence <G> you know what I mean!
>
> keeping to the right is a safer way to drive, or keeping in the left lane is
> safer?
>
> Personally, I think observing the "keep right except when passing"
> rule is the right thing to do out there (and before we start this whole
> argument anew, yes, I realize there are times when keeping
> right is not practical, or even possible, on metro freeways).
Well, when both lanes are bumper to bumper not easy to think of "these rules"
and believe me, I think the traffic anywhere these days in MN is like that.
Sheesh, why don't people stay home? <G>
And you're right, it IS the freeway I'm talking about. Seems I drive that
the most. Not feasible to use this passing rule on the busy local streets.
Ummmmmmm. I should stay home! LOL
Keep to the Right......when possible. How's that?
AnnE
Scott Smith
>"Scott Smith" <scott...@visi.com> wrote:
>>
>> No, I don't really know what you mean, Anne. Are you saying that you find
>> keeping to the right is a safer way to drive, or keeping in the left lane is
>> safer?
>>
>> Personally, I think observing the "keep right except when passing"
>> rule is the right thing to do out there (and before we start this whole
>> argument anew, yes, I realize there are times when keeping
>> right is not practical, or even possible, on metro freeways).
>
>Well, when both lanes are bumper to bumper not easy to think of "these rules"
>and believe me, I think the traffic anywhere these days in MN is like that.
>Sheesh, why don't people stay home? <G>
I think when traffic is truly bumper-to-bumper, it goes without saying that
the "keep right" rule wouldn't apply. Although, other than rush hours in the
metro area, I don't run into actual bumper-to-bumper traffic around here
all that often (except maybe in construction zones...but that's usually a
given in those areas).
The drivers that catch my attention are the ones that hold up everyone
else in the left lane, when they have ample opportunities to move right and
let the faster traffic pass them.
> Keep to the Right......when possible. How's that?
That's perfect...I'll accept that.
If only everyone would do their part to stay to the right whenever possible,
life on the freeways would be so much better for everyone, IMO.
SS
sheldon
"Greg Hencir" <hen...@pro-ns.net> wrote in message
news:3964fdb2....@news.pro-ns.net...
this
> >problem. Although, it does appear to be much more of a problem here
> >than in other states I drive in while traveling, IMO.
>
> plenty of this and the whole range of other thoughtless driving
> habits.
I had a really bizarre one the other day. I was in the right-most lane of
494 following a truck going east bound towards the Airport interchange.
So suddenly the car behind me, who had been tailgating me for the last mile,
goes into the left lane. I think "Thank god, I hate tailgaters", then just
as he passes me he pulls right in front of me and the truck where there was
barely any room for a car.
I decided I didn't want to be close to him, so I pulled over to the left to
pass, and as I did so he was screaming and cussing and giving me several
hand gestures.
Will never quite figure that one out. I watched and he sat there back in
the right lane behind that truck for quite a while as I lost him.
Greg
AnnE Austin wrote:
> Left lane is no place for slowpokes
> By BILL MAXWELL
> © St. Petersburg Times, published July 5, 2000
>
> During my most recent trip on Interstate 75, I witnessed one serious wreck,
> several near collisions, and I sensed a whole lot of road rage around me. All of
> these incidents and behaviors were caused by the same thing: stubborn SLOW POKES
> in the left lane.
I am curious, why do you blame law abiding left lane campers for these accidents and
not the illegally speeding road raging fools?
>
>
> Anyone who drives an interstate highway recognizes these motorists, zombies
> who plop themselves down in the passing lane and refuse to budge -- no matter
> what. Even when clearly posted signs say something like "Slower Traffic Keep to
> the Right," they plod ahead.
>
> I always wonder about these people -- the number of wrecks, injuries and
> fatalities they cause each year. I also wonder why state troopers do not haul
> them off the road more often and at least give them a harsh rebuke. A ticket
> would be better, of course.
>
I wonder why there is not more enforcement against those who dangerously speed and
those who are unable to control their rage.
>
> On my return trip from Gainesville last weekend, I focused on a few left-lane
> plodders. One man, with five elderly passengers, drove in the passing lane from
> the Micanopy exit to the last Ocala exit. More than 40 vehicles, including
> tractor trailers, piled up behind him.
>
> He did not move over until a bright-red Peterbilt pulled alongside, whereupon
> the angry trucker unleashed profanities, blasts of the horn and obscene finger
> gestures. After the truck pulled back, the shakened car driver moved to the
> nearest right lane and finally all the way over.
>
> Voila! Traffic began to flow smoothly. I always have suspected that left-lane
> dawdlers are a highway menace, and research confirms my suspicions.
So smooth flowing traffic of an unlawful speed is preferable to traffic moving at a
steady, lawful rate? How dare that old bastard think he could drive the speed
limit! Way to go trucker man! You used your vehicle as a weapon, endangering
others recklessly, but with results that allowed others to break the law, creating
many opportunities to endanger
>
>
> Earlier this year, the Minnesota Legislature passed a bill letting motorists
> know that, where possible, vehicles should be in the right-hand lane unless
> overtaking slower vehicles. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety
> Administration, impeding the flow of traffic is illegal in most states, meaning
> that drivers can be cited for blocking other motorists, including speeders.
Sure that ain't 'impeding the "lawful" flow of traffic', skippy?
>
>
> As of October 1999, 21 states had laws reserving the left lane for passing.
> In other words, "Pass or Get Right." The left lane is not to be used for
> continuous travel.
>
> Officials worry about the left-lane bunch because road rage is the biggest
> cause of accidents on major highways, and slow pokes incite the most road rage,
> according to the American Automobile Association.
>
> The Colorado State Patrol estimates that slow pokes in the passing lane
> caused nearly 5,000 wrecks in that state alone in 1999. Since then, troopers
> have cracked down on what they call "passive-aggressive" motorists, those who
> keep exactly the posted speed in the left lane, forcing faster drivers to pass
> them on the right.
>
> In a Denver Rocky Mountain News article, Colorado State patrol spokesman Maj.
> Guy King said, "Passive-aggressive drivers have their own agenda: They want to
> do what's right and impose the speed limit on other drivers. That's not a bad
> thing until it creates a hazardous situation on the road."
>
> Stephanie Faul, spokeswoman for the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety in
> Washington agrees: "(People in the left lane think) they're enforcing the law
> for people behind them. It infuriates the person behind them. There are always
> people who feel they have the right to obey the law, and they do. But the issue
> of obeying the law is secondary to the primary issue that you're endangering
> life."
I think the issue here is more about those who feel that they have the right to
break the law and go the speed they feel is right.
Sadly, it is a fact that an accident at 70 mph is more deadly than an accident at 55
mph. But those who claim the right to speed do not care about the other lives they
endanger.
> Many readers will accuse me of counterintuition, of advocating speeding.
> Rubish. I am not advocating speeding or breaking the law. I am pointing out that
> tens of thousands of natives and tourists in Florida drive unintelligently.
> Common sense says that if other vehicles are stacked up behind you, get out of
> the way. Common sense says that you cannot single-handedly enforce the speed
> limit. Common sense says let the troopers enforce the law.
>
> Yes, we have the right to drive slower than the regular flow of traffic. But
> we do not have the right to impede the flow of traffic. Left-lane rogues do not
> have the right to endanger the lives of other people because of their personal
> agendas. Simply stated, moving out of the way of fellow motorists is common
> sense -- and common courtesy.
>
>
> I like what Minnesota state Sen. Dick Day, a former trucker, said after the
> Senate passed the left-lane bill: "If you want to be a fascist and say, "I own
> the road; I'm going to sit here forever,' that's crazy. I know people who are
> going to say this allows people to go faster than the speed limit. And some
> people are going to go a little faster. But if you're a person who wants to go
> 60, move over to the right and let them go. Don't worry about them. Turn on the
> radio and enjoy yourself. The other guy is the one who's going to get the
> ticket."
>
> None of this is rocket science. Just common sense.
--
If Bill Gates had a nickel for every time Windows crashed...
Oh wait! He does!
cy...@visi.com
To preface this, I'm a devout right lane driver and rarely go over the
speed limit, generally dropping back if I notice I've gone over it.
I've almost cured myself of road rage, except for the moronic white
line followers (if they're following the white line, they've got right
of way, don't they? Regardless of what the rest of the traffic's
doing? Gah.), who I generally try to ignore, and meatheads who pass
me and pull in in front of me and then fluffing SLOW DOWN (I'm not
quite over them, but they're dangerous as hell, considering they tend
to pull in about 6 inches in front of my bumper). Think of me, other
than for those two things as a voice of modest sanity.
On Sat, 08 Jul 2000 01:37:07 -0500, Greg <nurnb...@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
>
>
>AnnE Austin wrote:
>
>> Left lane is no place for slowpokes
>> By BILL MAXWELL
>> © St. Petersburg Times, published July 5, 2000
>>
>> During my most recent trip on Interstate 75, I witnessed one serious wreck,
>> several near collisions, and I sensed a whole lot of road rage around me. All of
>> these incidents and behaviors were caused by the same thing: stubborn SLOW POKES
>> in the left lane.
>
>I am curious, why do you blame law abiding left lane campers for these accidents and
>not the illegally speeding road raging fools?
Because, while it seems quite incorrect, those law abiding persons are
the ones who, while seldom involved themselves, are the cause of the
accidents. And if you think they're* not afflicted with road rage,
you've never been a passenger in their car while they're enforcing.
>
>>
>>
>> Anyone who drives an interstate highway recognizes these motorists, zombies
>> who plop themselves down in the passing lane and refuse to budge -- no matter
>> what. Even when clearly posted signs say something like "Slower Traffic Keep to
>> the Right," they plod ahead.
>>
>> I always wonder about these people -- the number of wrecks, injuries and
>> fatalities they cause each year. I also wonder why state troopers do not haul
>> them off the road more often and at least give them a harsh rebuke. A ticket
>> would be better, of course.
>>
>
>I wonder why there is not more enforcement against those who dangerously speed and
>those who are unable to control their rage.
Because there aren't enough cops and they can't get everyone.
>
>>
>> On my return trip from Gainesville last weekend, I focused on a few left-lane
>> plodders. One man, with five elderly passengers, drove in the passing lane from
>> the Micanopy exit to the last Ocala exit. More than 40 vehicles, including
>> tractor trailers, piled up behind him.
>>
>> He did not move over until a bright-red Peterbilt pulled alongside, whereupon
>> the angry trucker unleashed profanities, blasts of the horn and obscene finger
>> gestures. After the truck pulled back, the shakened car driver moved to the
>> nearest right lane and finally all the way over.
>>
>> Voila! Traffic began to flow smoothly. I always have suspected that left-lane
>> dawdlers are a highway menace, and research confirms my suspicions.
>
>So smooth flowing traffic of an unlawful speed is preferable to traffic moving at a
>steady, lawful rate? How dare that old bastard think he could drive the speed
>limit! Way to go trucker man! You used your vehicle as a weapon, endangering
>others recklessly, but with results that allowed others to break the law, creating
>many opportunities to endanger
>
Contrary to the way things should be in a perfectly ordered world, the
statistics have convinced even the enforcement branches of the various
departments of transportation that smooth flowing traffic, whatever
the speed, is safest. And traffic with left lane enforcers is not
smooth flowing.
>>
>>
>> Earlier this year, the Minnesota Legislature passed a bill letting motorists
>> know that, where possible, vehicles should be in the right-hand lane unless
>> overtaking slower vehicles. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety
>> Administration, impeding the flow of traffic is illegal in most states, meaning
>> that drivers can be cited for blocking other motorists, including speeders.
>
>Sure that ain't 'impeding the "lawful" flow of traffic', skippy?
It'd be damn rare that a cop would cite a legal speed driver for
impeding, as they know their politics well, but at least the old law
read that way. Not overtly stated, but it completely left out any
reference to the speed limit (other than the lower limit that's on
freeway signs). You really can't drive only 30mph on the freeway,
regardless of how safe it is for you. Nor on any road where traffic
flows faster than you're going. You have to get out of the way. And,
yes, I do. I'll pull off on a shoulder on a regular highway if, for
some odd reason, I can't keep up to speed. No, it's not* 'lawful'
flow. It's flow. Unless they've changed the wording of the impeding
laws. Some very careful people wrote those little bits of helpful
thought.
(that's the last comment, in case you already remember the rest of
it.)
-----
rbc: vixen (somewhat harmless)
The Minnow Goddess, Speaker to squirrels, Protector of Bats.
Dreadfully slow on replying to email.
http://www.visi.com/~cyli
John A. Weeks III
> doing? Gah.), who I generally try to ignore, and meatheads who pass
> me and pull in in front of me and then fluffing SLOW DOWN (I'm not
> quite over them, but they're dangerous as hell, considering they tend
> to pull in about 6 inches in front of my bumper).
I like to practice "behavior modification" whenever I can with bad
drivers. In this case, the solution is to speed up a bit to close
the gap between you and the car ahead of you. This works best on
2-lane roads. This forces the passing car to pass another vehicle
that they likely didn't plan to pass. The training comes when there
is on-coming traffic. You get 5 points if you make they floor it
to complete the pass, 10 points if they bail out and abort the pass,
and 50 points if you cause an accident. The result that you are
after is to scare the living hell out of them so they will think
twice about doing it in the future.
-john-
--
====================================================================
John A. Weeks III 612-891-2382 jo...@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications FAX 612-953-4289 http://www.johnweeks.com
====================================================================
Scott Smith
>In article <mr7ems437tdq4raj3...@4ax.com>, cy...@visi.com wrote:
>
>> doing? Gah.), who I generally try to ignore, and meatheads who pass
>> me and pull in in front of me and then fluffing SLOW DOWN (I'm not
>> quite over them, but they're dangerous as hell, considering they tend
>> to pull in about 6 inches in front of my bumper).
>
>I like to practice "behavior modification" whenever I can with bad
>drivers. In this case, the solution is to speed up a bit to close
>the gap between you and the car ahead of you. This works best on
>2-lane roads. This forces the passing car to pass another vehicle
>that they likely didn't plan to pass. The training comes when there
>is on-coming traffic. You get 5 points if you make they floor it
>to complete the pass, 10 points if they bail out and abort the pass,
>and 50 points if you cause an accident. The result that you are
>after is to scare the living hell out of them so they will think
>twice about doing it in the future.
>
>-john-
John, that may be the stupidest thing I've seen you post in
this group so far. Even as an attempt at humor, it falls short
of being even marginally funny, IMO.
SS
joe smoe
this. After being almost hit 4 times in one day at crosswalks by cars not
looking right on red trying to turn when I have the walk sign lite(they dont
even look right, just left to see if there rolling stop will get em around
the corner), I now slow only enough to run into the side of there car at a
non injury speed. My buddies and me decided its 10 points if you dent there
car door. 20 when they decide to call the cops when there in the wrong in
the first place, and 50 if the cop tickets them for failure to yield in the
crosswalk.We havent figured out any bonus if the bike gets damaged and they
have to pay for it yet (maybe a point-per-dollar damage).
Nospam
"Scott Smith" <scott...@visi.com> wrote in message
news:pgnemsc40hnt6b1ha...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 08 Jul 2000 11:00:32 -0500, jo...@johnweeks.com (John A. Weeks III)
wrote:
>
> >In article <mr7ems437tdq4raj3...@4ax.com>, cy...@visi.com
wrote:
> >
> >> doing? Gah.), who I generally try to ignore, and meatheads who pass
> >> me and pull in in front of me and then fluffing SLOW DOWN (I'm not
> >> quite over them, but they're dangerous as hell, considering they tend
> >> to pull in about 6 inches in front of my bumper).
> >
Scott Smith
>I find it highly amusing. My new game since I bought a mountain bike is now
>this. After being almost hit 4 times in one day at crosswalks by cars not
>looking right on red trying to turn when I have the walk sign lite(they dont
>even look right, just left to see if there rolling stop will get em around
>the corner), I now slow only enough to run into the side of there car at a
>non injury speed. My buddies and me decided its 10 points if you dent there
>car door. 20 when they decide to call the cops when there in the wrong in
>the first place, and 50 if the cop tickets them for failure to yield in the
>crosswalk.We havent figured out any bonus if the bike gets damaged and they
>have to pay for it yet (maybe a point-per-dollar damage).
I see. So instead of practicing a little extra caution and common sense
because others don't, you and your buddies would rather add to the
problem and just make it worse.
Sounds like a sensible and intelligent solution to me. :-|
SS
joe smoe
Section: 169.222
169.222 Operation of bicycle.
(e) A person lawfully operating a bicycle on a sidewalk, or
across a roadway or shoulder on a crosswalk, shall have all the
rights and duties applicable to a pedestrian under the same
circumstances.
I drive one of those so called big ass SUV`s. I also ride a 125hp crotch
rocket and I ride a mountain bike. I also try my best to obey and respect
the laws and look out for pedestrians when I am operating them. When you
almost get taken out by these clueless drivers at almost 3 of every 10
intersection crosswalks you cross on a bicycle, Yes, you decide its time to
do something about it. Doesnt seem like the states public awareness campaign
is or ever will. Its kind of like your obession with left lane drivers....It
WONT change period even if a laws passed.
Nospam
"Scott Smith" <scott...@visi.com> wrote in message
news:aoafms4tg5o6i46af...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 08 Jul 2000 22:23:56 GMT, "joe smoe" <m...@spamless.com> wrote:
>
> >I find it highly amusing. My new game since I bought a mountain bike is
now
> >this. After being almost hit 4 times in one day at crosswalks by cars not
> >looking right on red trying to turn when I have the walk sign lite(they
dont
> >even look right, just left to see if there rolling stop will get em
around
> >the corner), I now slow only enough to run into the side of there car at
a
> >non injury speed. My buddies and me decided its 10 points if you dent
there
Tracy McKibben
things I've seen posted here... Too many people out there would just
as soon run that oncoming car off the road before they'd back off. I
don't know about you, but I sure wouldn't want the death of a family
on my conscience just because I wouldn't let someone pass me. Think
about that...
On Sat, 08 Jul 2000 11:00:32 -0500, jo...@johnweeks.com (John A. Weeks
III) wrote:
>In article <mr7ems437tdq4raj3...@4ax.com>, cy...@visi.com wrote:
>
>> doing? Gah.), who I generally try to ignore, and meatheads who pass
>> me and pull in in front of me and then fluffing SLOW DOWN (I'm not
>> quite over them, but they're dangerous as hell, considering they tend
>> to pull in about 6 inches in front of my bumper).
>
>I like to practice "behavior modification" whenever I can with bad
>drivers. In this case, the solution is to speed up a bit to close
>the gap between you and the car ahead of you. This works best on
>2-lane roads. This forces the passing car to pass another vehicle
>that they likely didn't plan to pass. The training comes when there
>is on-coming traffic. You get 5 points if you make they floor it
>to complete the pass, 10 points if they bail out and abort the pass,
>and 50 points if you cause an accident. The result that you are
>after is to scare the living hell out of them so they will think
>twice about doing it in the future.
>
>-john-
>
>--
>====================================================================
>John A. Weeks III 612-891-2382 jo...@johnweeks.com
>Newave Communications FAX 612-953-4289 http://www.johnweeks.com
>====================================================================
--
Tracy McKibben
tmcki...@noSPAM.mn.rr.com
--
Tracy McKibben
traffic on the freeway is traveling above the speed limit, and someone
who is impeding the flow of that traffic is creating a hazard that
wouldn't exist if the speeders were allowed to spread themselves out.
Watch an auto race sometime. There is a saying in auto racing that
"cautions breed cautions". A "caution" is a yellow-flag condition
that occurs when there is an accident. Once the accident is cleaned
up, the cars are lined back up and the race resumes. More often than
not, another accident will soon follow, during that period when the
cars are all bunched up. On the other hand, once the cars have had a
chance to spread out, with the faster ones moving out front, accidents
usually only occur due to mechanical failures.
The law is one thing, but reality is sometimes another thing
altogether.
Scott Smith
>MINNESOTA TRAFFIC REGULATIONS
>Section: 169.222
>169.222 Operation of bicycle.
>(e) A person lawfully operating a bicycle on a sidewalk, or
>across a roadway or shoulder on a crosswalk, shall have all the
>rights and duties applicable to a pedestrian under the same
>circumstances.
>
>I drive one of those so called big ass SUV`s. I also ride a 125hp crotch
>rocket and I ride a mountain bike. I also try my best to obey and respect
>the laws and look out for pedestrians when I am operating them. When you
>almost get taken out by these clueless drivers at almost 3 of every 10
>intersection crosswalks you cross on a bicycle, Yes, you decide its time to
>do something about it. Doesnt seem like the states public awareness campaign
>is or ever will. Its kind of like your obession with left lane drivers....It
>WONT change period even if a laws passed.
If the problem will not change, then why would you want to
do something to make it even worse, like ramming into cars
with your bike? Why not try doing something to make it better,
like being a little extra cautious and alert for those clueless
drivers at the intersections...since you know they are going
to be there, and they aren't going to change their habits?
Is petty revenge and retribution the rational and sensible
way to deal with the problem?
On a side note, I do agree with you that too many drivers out
there don't pay attention to pedestrians and bikes at intersections.
It happens to me all the time when I'm walking through downtown...
but I don't choose to run up and kick the cars, I just look out for
them since they aren't looking out for me.
SS
sheldon
"joe smoe" <m...@spamless.com> wrote in message
news:0SN95.9210$9e5.2...@typhoon.mn.mediaone.net...
> I find it highly amusing. My new game since I bought a mountain bike is
now
> this. After being almost hit 4 times in one day at crosswalks by cars not
> looking right on red trying to turn when I have the walk sign lite(they
dont
> even look right, just left to see if there rolling stop will get em around
> the corner), I now slow only enough to run into the side of there car at a
there
> car door. 20 when they decide to call the cops when there in the wrong in
> the first place, and 50 if the cop tickets them for failure to yield in
the
> crosswalk.We havent figured out any bonus if the bike gets damaged and
they
> have to pay for it yet (maybe a point-per-dollar damage).
You realize that bicycles have to obey the same traffic laws as cars?
i.e. walk signs are for pedestrians. Green lights are for cars and bikes.
Mike H
Greg <nurnb...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:3966CC13...@bigfoot.com...
...
> >
> > I always wonder about these people -- the number of wrecks, injuries
and
> > fatalities they cause each year. I also wonder why state troopers do not
haul
> > them off the road more often and at least give them a harsh rebuke. A
ticket
> > would be better, of course.
> >
>
> I wonder why there is not more enforcement against those who dangerously
speed and
> those who are unable to control their rage.
1) How much more enforcement is necessary for speeders? I saw at least 6
law enforcement vehicles on my travel to Litchfield from Burnsville today
with two of them already having someone pulled over.
2) When did it become illegal to have uncontrolable rage? As long as you
keep it to yourself, I belive you can still be very upset with someone else
and not have to fear law enforcement.
2a) "dangerous speed" is a fairly relative term. On a roadway full of
people moving 70, I would say the one person going 55 is the one who is
"dangerously speed"ing.
...
> > gestures. After the truck pulled back, the shakened car driver moved to
the
> > nearest right lane and finally all the way over.
> >
> > Voila! Traffic began to flow smoothly. I always have suspected that
left-lane
> > dawdlers are a highway menace, and research confirms my suspicions.
>
> So smooth flowing traffic of an unlawful speed is preferable to traffic
moving at a
> steady, lawful rate? How dare that old bastard think he could drive the
speed
> limit! Way to go trucker man! You used your vehicle as a weapon,
endangering
> others recklessly, but with results that allowed others to break the law,
creating
> many opportunities to endanger
...
I didn't notice a mention of the speed at which the altercation with the
trucker took place. What if the speed limit is 65 and the old guy decided
to go 60 in the left lane. Should he have moved over then? Why? If he
should have moved over in that case, why wouldn't it also be the case he
should move over at any time he is holding up the natural flow of traffic?
...
> > Stephanie Faul, spokeswoman for the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety
in
> > Washington agrees: "(People in the left lane think) they're enforcing
the law
> > for people behind them. It infuriates the person behind them. There are
always
> > people who feel they have the right to obey the law, and they do. But
the issue
> > of obeying the law is secondary to the primary issue that you're
endangering
> > life."
>
> I think the issue here is more about those who feel that they have the
right to
> break the law and go the speed they feel is right.
> Sadly, it is a fact that an accident at 70 mph is more deadly than an
accident at 55
> mph. But those who claim the right to speed do not care about the other
lives they
> endanger.
1) The issue is not about those who feel that they have the right to break
the law. At issue is those in the general public that would rather incite a
minority of drivers by planting themselves in the left lane when they could
simply move over and let the flow of traffic continue.
2) Even more shocking and sad is that an accident at 55mph is even more
deadly than an accident at 30mph. And yet again, an accident at 30mph is
more deadly than an accident at 15mph. And guess what, an accident at 15mph
is more likely to cause injury and possibly death than an accident at 0mph.
Cars are just plain dangerous. They can cause the death of an individual
regardless of how skilled a driver they are or how cautious they are. Every
time we hit the road we have to rely on our skills, but also the skills of
those around us. I'll tell you what. If I'm in any lane, and I have
someone tailgating me, I'm going to move over and let them by. It's may not
be safer for them to allow them to exceed the speed limit as the pass me,
but I know it is certainly safer for me.
Here's a sampling of my rules of the road:
1) If someone in front of me is driving irratically, swearving over lanes
and just generally not paying attention, I accellerate and pass them. Even
if I have to exceed the speed limit momentarly to pass them. I would much
rather have them in my rear view mirror than in front of me.
2) If I happen to come along side a Semi-Truck, I either accellerate to pass
him, or I slow to not be so close to them. I've worked in the trucking
industry and things have a tendency to fall off them things. From buckets,
to axles, to decking, to body panels, to rubber. Things fall off, and I
don't want to be there to catch it.
3) Keep right except when passing.
4) If on a two lane undivided highway someone starts to pass me, I slow down
so that he passes me sooner and can get back into the proper lane sooner. I
don't (like others I've had to deal with) try to speed up and make it take
longer for them to pass.
joe smoe
a pedestrian. See my previous post if you would like to see the mn statue #.
Maybe your one of the offenders , since you dont seem to know the law
regarding this:)
Nospam
"sheldon" <ssheldon...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:8k8pst$rim$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net...
John A. Weeks III
(Tracy McKibben) wrote:
> Speeding may be illegal, but the reality is that the bulk of the
> traffic on the freeway is traveling above the speed limit, and someone
> who is impeding the flow of that traffic is creating a hazard that
> wouldn't exist if the speeders were allowed to spread themselves out.
This may be a hazard, but it is the speeders who are creating the
hazzard. Not everyone has 1/2 second reaction time. My grandma
is out there with foggy vision and a 3-second reaction time, and
folks have to go slow enough to deal with her.
The law states that anyone who speeds gives up any other right-of-
way that they would otherwise have. (The caveat here is that I
learned the uniform vehicle code, which is followed by many states,
but not strictly by MN, so I have no clue what MN state law is,
but it was the law where I was in law enforcement back in the good
ole days.)
> Watch an auto race sometime. There is a saying in auto racing that
> "cautions breed cautions". A "caution" is a yellow-flag condition
> that occurs when there is an accident. Once the accident is cleaned
> up, the cars are lined back up and the race resumes. More often than
> not, another accident will soon follow, during that period when the
> cars are all bunched up. On the other hand, once the cars have had a
> chance to spread out, with the faster ones moving out front, accidents
> usually only occur due to mechanical failures.
Again, this seems to make sense until you add in the human factor.
People exhibit heard-like mentality. They tend to go from spread
out conditions and bunch-up. Watch on the freeway how there can
be one car going 1MPH below the speed limit, and within a few
minutes, there will be a whole group of cars bunched up following
this one person.
sheldon
riding a bicycle on sidewalks?
"joe smoe" <m...@spamless.com> wrote in message
news:OKS95.9253$9e5.2...@typhoon.mn.mediaone.net...
Tracy McKibben
III) wrote:
>In article <3967b64f....@127.0.0.1>, tmcki...@nospam.mn.rr.com
>(Tracy McKibben) wrote:
>
>> Speeding may be illegal, but the reality is that the bulk of the
>> traffic on the freeway is traveling above the speed limit, and someone
>> who is impeding the flow of that traffic is creating a hazard that
>> wouldn't exist if the speeders were allowed to spread themselves out.
>
>This may be a hazard, but it is the speeders who are creating the
>hazzard. Not everyone has 1/2 second reaction time. My grandma
>is out there with foggy vision and a 3-second reaction time, and
>folks have to go slow enough to deal with her.
With a 3-second reaction time and poor vision, she has NO business on
the road. This is one reason that I am a FIRM believer that driver
re-testing should be MANDATORY every five years. A sixteen year old
should NOT have the right to be out there driving alone, nor should a
sixty year old who can't see beyond the end of the hood. Driving is
not a RIGHT, it is a privelege, and some folks simply don't have the
skills to be out there.
>
>The law states that anyone who speeds gives up any other right-of-
>way that they would otherwise have. (The caveat here is that I
>learned the uniform vehicle code, which is followed by many states,
>but not strictly by MN, so I have no clue what MN state law is,
>but it was the law where I was in law enforcement back in the good
>ole days.)
>
>> Watch an auto race sometime. There is a saying in auto racing that
>> "cautions breed cautions". A "caution" is a yellow-flag condition
>> that occurs when there is an accident. Once the accident is cleaned
>> up, the cars are lined back up and the race resumes. More often than
>> not, another accident will soon follow, during that period when the
>> cars are all bunched up. On the other hand, once the cars have had a
>> chance to spread out, with the faster ones moving out front, accidents
>> usually only occur due to mechanical failures.
>
>Again, this seems to make sense until you add in the human factor.
>People exhibit heard-like mentality. They tend to go from spread
>out conditions and bunch-up. Watch on the freeway how there can
>be one car going 1MPH below the speed limit, and within a few
>minutes, there will be a whole group of cars bunched up following
>this one person.
1MPH below the speed limit? There's that reality thing again. Few
people drive 1MPH below the speed limit, most drive 5MPH above the
limit, some even faster. Again, not LEGAL, but REALITY. If a stream
of water is moving at 70MPH and you suddenly obstruct that flow, you
end up with a flood, or the obstruction simply gets swept away.
>
>-john-
>
>--
>====================================================================
>John A. Weeks III 612-891-2382 jo...@johnweeks.com
>Newave Communications FAX 612-953-4289 http://www.johnweeks.com
>====================================================================
Iconoclast
amusing. There were 3 eastbound lanes most of the way. The
furthest left is reserved for high-occupancy vehicles. The far
right lane was populated by the tiny percentage of cars observing
the speed limit signs. And all the rest of the traffic was in
the center lane, "passing". It was such a joke because almost
none of the speeders were willing to move right once they
"passed", so they were this solid block of cars, lined up with at
most a car length or two between them, going 70mph. I'd love to
have a traffic study to compute how much actual time got saved by
this compulsive behavior. These aren't people using intelligence
to control their cars. They are people who just can't drive any
slower. And they totally ignore any and all traffic laws that
inconvenience them.
Whatever hell they get, they built with their own stupidity.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
Scott Smith
>On Sun, 09 Jul 2000 01:33:35 -0500, jo...@johnweeks.com (John A. Weeks
>III) wrote:
>
>>In article <3967b64f....@127.0.0.1>, tmcki...@nospam.mn.rr.com
>>(Tracy McKibben) wrote:
>>
>>> Speeding may be illegal, but the reality is that the bulk of the
>>> traffic on the freeway is traveling above the speed limit, and someone
>>> who is impeding the flow of that traffic is creating a hazard that
>>> wouldn't exist if the speeders were allowed to spread themselves out.
>>
>>This may be a hazard, but it is the speeders who are creating the
>>hazzard. Not everyone has 1/2 second reaction time. My grandma
>>is out there with foggy vision and a 3-second reaction time, and
>>folks have to go slow enough to deal with her.
>
>With a 3-second reaction time and poor vision, she has NO business on
>the road. This is one reason that I am a FIRM believer that driver
>re-testing should be MANDATORY every five years. A sixteen year old
>should NOT have the right to be out there driving alone, nor should a
>sixty year old who can't see beyond the end of the hood. Driving is
>not a RIGHT, it is a privelege, and some folks simply don't have the
>skills to be out there.
Exactly. I have been all for mandatory re-testing for drivers
for a long time now. There are far too many drivers out there
that obviously shouldn't be...like John's grandma (and perhaps
John himself, based on his comments here).
The thing is, that driver going 1mph under the limit in the left lane
*is* obstructing the flow of traffic that's going 5mph over the limit,
and that driver should move right until the faster traffic has passed.
Common sense.
I never looked at this left passing lane thing so much, until I started
seeing all the people in this group trying to justify left lane camping
behavior. I have come to believe that there are many people in this
state that have been conditioned to think that obstructing traffic in
the left lane is OK. It's all a sad reflection on the driving mentality
of the people in this area...and Minnesotans already get a bad enough
rep around the country as not being too bright...and this doesn't do
anything to help that situation.
SS
Scott Smith
<jim_mork_e...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>I drove I-394 the other day during rush hour, and it was kind of
>amusing. There were 3 eastbound lanes most of the way. The
>furthest left is reserved for high-occupancy vehicles. The far
>right lane was populated by the tiny percentage of cars observing
>the speed limit signs. And all the rest of the traffic was in
>the center lane, "passing". It was such a joke because almost
>none of the speeders were willing to move right once they
>"passed", so they were this solid block of cars, lined up with at
>most a car length or two between them, going 70mph. I'd love to
>have a traffic study to compute how much actual time got saved by
>this compulsive behavior. These aren't people using intelligence
>to control their cars. They are people who just can't drive any
>slower. And they totally ignore any and all traffic laws that
>inconvenience them.
Since you stated that the entire flow of traffic was going 70mph,
would it have made more sense for a few people to get in the
left lane and go the speed limit? Wouldn't that just congest the
rush hour traffic there worse than it already was?
I asked a state patrol about this once, and his response was that
it was safer and smarter to go with the flow of traffic, rather than
trying to obstruct it. He also stated that if the posted limit is 55mph,
but the entire flow is going over the limit, they would rarely, if ever,
ticket anyone going with the general flow of traffic...especially
during heavy traffic times.
So, the bottom line, if you want to stick to the posted limits, stay to
the right if there is faster traffic out there. Common sense.
SS
Iconoclast
patrol willing to counsel private citizens that it is "smart" to
break laws. I think right there you have a large part of the
current problem. When even the law enforcers scoff the law, it
should be taken off the books. Or the law enforcers should be
encouraged to find productive work.
John A. Weeks III
(Tracy McKibben) wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Jul 2000 01:33:35 -0500, jo...@johnweeks.com (John A. Weeks
> III) wrote:
>
> >In article <3967b64f....@127.0.0.1>, tmcki...@nospam.mn.rr.com
> >(Tracy McKibben) wrote:
> >
> >> Speeding may be illegal, but the reality is that the bulk of the
> >> traffic on the freeway is traveling above the speed limit, and someone
> >> who is impeding the flow of that traffic is creating a hazard that
> >> wouldn't exist if the speeders were allowed to spread themselves out.
> >
> >This may be a hazard, but it is the speeders who are creating the
> >hazzard. Not everyone has 1/2 second reaction time. My grandma
> >is out there with foggy vision and a 3-second reaction time, and
> >folks have to go slow enough to deal with her.
>
> With a 3-second reaction time and poor vision, she has NO business on
> the road. This is one reason that I am a FIRM believer that driver
> re-testing should be MANDATORY every five years. A sixteen year old
> should NOT have the right to be out there driving alone, nor should a
> sixty year old who can't see beyond the end of the hood. Driving is
> not a RIGHT, it is a privelege, and some folks simply don't have the
> skills to be out there.
I fully agree that if everyone on the road where highly skilled, we
could all drive at 90MPH and not have any problems. But we again
have to go back to reality here. The government has decided that
low skilled and medically impaired drivers also have a right to
drive on the road. Since the US joined the UN, we also have to
allow those with International Driver's Licenses on the road (ie,
those who don't speak any english and cannot read our road signs,
plus they have never taken a US drivers test or know our laws).
As a result, our laws are set up to work with the average driver,
where the average driver is poorly skilled. Thats why the speed
limits are low, and why we have stop lights. Sure, highly skilled
drivers could all go 90 and figure out the every-other car taking
turns at a stop sign, but the average driver cannot.
Keep in mind that fully 50% of accidents have no alchol factor
at all, which means that 1/2 of accidents are caused by people
that are fully sober. You have to drive in a sane manner and
be prepared for these people. The alternative is to eventually
end up as a statistic. And trust me, I have pulled more bodies
out of wrecked cars with a spoon and zip-lock baggie that you
can possibly imagine.
Scott Smith
<jim_mork_e...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>No, the "bottom line" is that there are members of the highway
>patrol willing to counsel private citizens that it is "smart" to
>break laws. I think right there you have a large part of the
>current problem. When even the law enforcers scoff the law, it
>should be taken off the books. Or the law enforcers should be
>encouraged to find productive work.
I don't think he was "counseling" anyone to break the law, but he
was instead just using common sense about dealing with the
issue.
SS
Scott Smith
>Keep in mind that fully 50% of accidents have no alchol factor
>at all, which means that 1/2 of accidents are caused by people
>that are fully sober. You have to drive in a sane manner and
>be prepared for these people. The alternative is to eventually
>end up as a statistic. And trust me, I have pulled more bodies
>out of wrecked cars with a spoon and zip-lock baggie that you
>can possibly imagine.
Do tell us about your experience using a "spoon and zip-lock baggie"
at traffic accidents. Is/was this part of your job, or just a hobby?
SS
joe smoe
> I guess you ignored the text of 169.222 which said you aren't supposed to
be
> riding a bicycle on sidewalks?
>
from 169.222:
"Local
authorities may prohibit the operation of bicycles on any
sidewalk or crosswalk under their jurisdiction." Try rereading it again. If
there is no local jurisdiction against it, it is very much legal to do so.
Bicycles must also yield the right of way to pedestrians, which I do. I
still cant seem to find anything about yielding to cars when using said
crosswalk legaly on a bike though. BTW..The western surburb i live in has
*NO* law concerning the use of bikes on sidewalks and also recomends that
they be used to bike on over using busy streets, if you call there city
offices and speak with a public safety offical thats the reply you get from
them here. I would also be curious as to how many, if ANY, citys or suburbs
have any law prohibiting bikes from sidewalks. Maybe you could bring it up
at the next leg. session and get a bill goin to ban bikes on sidewalks. We
could make all the 4-5 yr. olds ride on the co. rds here instead. Give the
car drivers a point system on how many they can hit then.
NoSpam
Peter S. Saly
> there don't pay attention to pedestrians and bikes at intersections.
> It happens to me all the time when I'm walking through downtown...
> but I don't choose to run up and kick the cars, I just look out for
> them since they aren't looking out for me.
>
I have found that stepping up and putting a knee in their door is quite
effective...
It leaves a lovely dent.
Makes a wonderfully horrid sound, that scares the drivers to no end..
And more important it leaves a good mental and emotional scar on all but the
most stupid.
Also if they are stupid enough to want to file a police report about it..
I am ALWAYS more than happy to participate.
And I ALWAYS ask for their insurance information as well..
I then call the insurance company, explain what happenned and give them
my lawyers name...
After the experience, I can be pretty sure that there will be one more
driver a little bit more careful at crosswalks and corners..
It is much more effective than yammering about new laws..
Eddie Auerbach
> I would also be curious as to how many, if ANY, citys or suburbs have
> any law prohibiting bikes from sidewalks.
In Minneapolis, that would be in the business districts, e.g. along
Hennepin, downtown, and around the University. It is usually posted.
--
/ Eddie Auerbach --- e...@mail.com --- http://www.cmrr.umn.edu/~eja/ \
\ Center for Magnetic Resonance Research -- University of Minnesota /
/ 2021 6th Street S.E., Minneapolis, MN 55455-3007 -- (612)626-2001 \
Scott Smith
>joe smoe wrote:
>
>> I would also be curious as to how many, if ANY, citys or suburbs have
>> any law prohibiting bikes from sidewalks.
>
>In Minneapolis, that would be in the business districts, e.g. along
>Hennepin, downtown, and around the University. It is usually posted.
Isn't it also posted around the city lakes (i.e. Calhoun, Harriet, Isles)
that bicyclists must use the marked bike paths, and stay off of the
pedestrian sidewalks? I thought I remembered seeing those signs
the last time we were walking there (and cyclists seemed to be
ignoring them, since we were always dodging them during the
walk on the pedestrian path).
SS
Scott Smith
>AnnE Austin wrote:
>
>> Left lane is no place for slowpokes
>> By BILL MAXWELL
>> Š St. Petersburg Times, published July 5, 2000
>>
>> During my most recent trip on Interstate 75, I witnessed one serious wreck,
>> several near collisions, and I sensed a whole lot of road rage around me. All of
>> these incidents and behaviors were caused by the same thing: stubborn SLOW POKES
>> in the left lane.
>
>I am curious, why do you blame law abiding left lane campers for these accidents and
>not the illegally speeding road raging fools?
Because that's really a lose-lose situation...since neither one
is any better than the other. Raging reckless speeders are just as
much of a problem as the sleepy or stubborn left lane campers, IMO.
SS
sheldon
>
> "sheldon" <ssheldon...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
> news:8ka3l7$r0m$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net...
> > I guess you ignored the text of 169.222 which said you aren't supposed
to
> be
> > riding a bicycle on sidewalks?
> >
> That *may* be partly correct , however read on
You missed the part about business districts. But that's ok, you appear to
be caught up with the Scott Smith disease of trying to read more into laws
than are there in order to justify to yourself your personal vendetta.
I have never encountered any problem as you describe while riding a bike.
But then I ride defensively.
If I am approaching an intersection, I do not try to sneak past the cars.
I don't try to cross intersections illegally.
The primary key, don't do anything unexpected and make sure you are seen by
the drivers, and make sure you make eye contact to insure they see you.
If you wish to play chicken with automobiles on your bicycle, go right
ahead, but you'll just lose in the end.
sheldon
"Eddie Auerbach" <e...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:39690CA7...@mail.com...
> joe smoe wrote:
>
> > I would also be curious as to how many, if ANY, citys or suburbs have
> > any law prohibiting bikes from sidewalks.
>
> In Minneapolis, that would be in the business districts, e.g. along
> Hennepin, downtown, and around the University. It is usually posted.
That's detailed in 169.22... joe smoe seems unable to read.
Most cities I am aware of prohibit bicycles on the sidewalks because of the
danger they represent to pedestrians. Obviously it is also not safe to ride
bicycles on most streets, thus the move to build specific paths for bikes.
sheldon
"Peter S. Saly" <Pe...@Saly.com> wrote in message
news:smhu12...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> I have found that stepping up and putting a knee in their door is quite
> effective...
> It leaves a lovely dent.
> Makes a wonderfully horrid sound, that scares the drivers to no end..
> And more important it leaves a good mental and emotional scar on all but
the
> most stupid.
> Also if they are stupid enough to want to file a police report about it..
> I am ALWAYS more than happy to participate.
Interesting, considering you would be at fault.
> And I ALWAYS ask for their insurance information as well..
> I then call the insurance company, explain what happenned and give
them
> my lawyers name...
Yes after purposefully vandalizing automobiles you might need a lawyer.
cy...@visi.com
oddities, many of which happen in the Twin City metro area), so I'd as
soon not see people going 90. Maybe on the straight and flat in the
states like Wyoming, where you can see practically forever ahead of
you. I'm taking it that they had the wit to over design, so 80 might
be safe in many places.
On Sun, 09 Jul 2000 11:28:35 -0500, jo...@johnweeks.com (John A. Weeks
III) wrote:
>
>I fully agree that if everyone on the road where highly skilled, we
>could all drive at 90MPH and not have any problems. But we again
>have to go back to reality here.
-----
rbc: vixen (somewhat harmless)
The Minnow Goddess, Speaker to squirrels, Protector of Bats.
Dreadfully slow on replying to email.
http://www.visi.com/~cyli
AnnE Austin
>
> > Left lane is no place for slowpokes
> > By BILL MAXWELL
> >
> > During my most recent trip on Interstate 75, I witnessed one serious
wreck,
> > several near collisions, and I sensed a whole lot of road rage around me.
All of
> > these incidents and behaviors were caused by the same thing: stubborn SLOW
POKES
> > in the left lane.
>
> I am curious, why do you blame law abiding left lane campers for these
accidents and
> not the illegally speeding road raging fools?
Well, gosh, seeing as I'm the only name listed on this guess I need to respond.
<g> Don't shoot the messenger, OK?????
[everything else snipped as I'm sorry I ever posted this in the first place!
Man, there's even road rage in this newsgroup! <g>]
AnnE
Peter S. Saly
1) Anyone cutting me off while I am legally and rightfullly using a
crosswalk is the one at fault..
2) They can always TRY to demonstrate that.
But such a defense by a driver does not go very far..
Better luck next time.
joe smoe
>
> You missed the part about business districts. But that's ok, you appear
to
> be caught up with the Scott Smith disease of trying to read more into laws
> than are there in order to justify to yourself your personal vendetta.
Im not reading a thing into them. There are legal places where you may ride
on the sidewalk and crosswalks and I happen to be using them
> I have never encountered any problem as you describe while riding a bike.
I wish i could say the same, but it happens on a daily basis when im riding
> But then I ride defensively.
I also do, proof that i am still here typing this
> If I am approaching an intersection, I do not try to sneak past the cars.
I dont either, Im talking about crossing a crosswalk after I have hit the
crosswalk button and the little walk sign is lit up for me to cross it
> I don't try to cross intersections illegally.
show me where I said I am crossing intersections illegally in my previous
posts please
> The primary key, don't do anything unexpected and make sure you are seen
by
> the drivers, and make sure you make eye contact to insure they see you.
When again is crossing a crosswalk using the *walk* light considered
unexpected? And how are you suppose to make eye contact with some fool dead
set on rolling thru the red doing a right turn thats looking left the whole
time.
> If you wish to play chicken with automobiles on your bicycle, go right
> ahead, but you'll just lose in the end.
I`m not playing chicken. Im amusing myself and having alot of fun at it.
Nospam
joe smoe
NoSpam
"sheldon" <ssheldon...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:8kbg5k$50o$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net...
Scott Smith
>"sheldon" <ssheldon...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
>news:8kbfub$1h3m$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net...
>>
>> You missed the part about business districts. But that's ok, you appear
>> to be caught up with the Scott Smith disease of trying to read more into laws
>> than are there in order to justify to yourself your personal vendetta.
Ah, Sheldon can't resist taking a swipe at me, even though I've
killfiled him and don't respond to him anymore.
Nice to know that some things will never change. ;-)
BTW, just WHO has the personal vendetta going on here?
SS
Gilly
"Peter S. Saly" <Pe...@Saly.com> wrote in message
> >
> > "Peter S. Saly" <Pe...@Saly.com> wrote in message
> > news:smhu12...@corp.supernews.com...
> > >
> > > I have found that stepping up and putting a knee in their door is
quite
> > > effective...
> > > It leaves a lovely dent.
> > > Makes a wonderfully horrid sound, that scares the drivers to no end..
> > > And more important it leaves a good mental and emotional scar on all
but
> > the
> > > most stupid.
> > > Also if they are stupid enough to want to file a police report about
> it..
> > > I am ALWAYS more than happy to participate.
> >
> > Interesting, considering you would be at fault.
> >
> > > And I ALWAYS ask for their insurance information as well..
> > > I then call the insurance company, explain what happenned and give
> > them
> > > my lawyers name...
> >
> >
>
>
> crosswalk is the one at fault..
>
> 2) They can always TRY to demonstrate that.
> But such a defense by a driver does not go very far..
Right, how COULD that dent have been caused by you, because that would mean
the motorist would have to have been in the crosswalk with you. Sounds like
Sheldon's preparing to defend his right to run pedestrians down, now.
That's one way of stopping crime, Sheldon. What next?
>
> Better luck next time.
>
>
>
>
Gilly
> >
> > You missed the part about business districts. But that's ok, you appear
to
> > be caught up with the Scott Smith disease of trying to read more into
laws
> > than are there in order to justify to yourself your personal vendetta.
>
ride
> on the sidewalk and crosswalks and I happen to be using them
Careful, Sheldon's no one to mess with. He'll run you down, too, if he
thinks you might not be within the strictest interpretation of the law. If
he's armed with a car and you're not, it's your problem, not his.
Scott Smith
>"sheldon" <ssheldon...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
>news:8kbfub$1h3m$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net...
>>
>> You missed the part about business districts. But that's ok, you appear
>to
>> be caught up with the Scott Smith disease of trying to read more into laws
>> than are there in order to justify to yourself your personal vendetta.
>
>Im not reading a thing into them. There are legal places where you may ride
>on the sidewalk and crosswalks and I happen to be using them
Yes, there are probably more places in the city where you can ride
your bike on the sidewalks than there are places where you can't.
>> I have never encountered any problem as you describe while riding a bike.
>
>I wish i could say the same, but it happens on a daily basis when im riding
It happens to me when I ride my bike, or walk, in the downtown area
all the time.
>> But then I ride defensively.
>
>I also do, proof that i am still here typing this
Driving defensively is a great idea...it's just too bad more people
don't do it regards to pedestrians and bikes...especially downtown.
>> If I am approaching an intersection, I do not try to sneak past the cars.
>
>I dont either, Im talking about crossing a crosswalk after I have hit the
>crosswalk button and the little walk sign is lit up for me to cross it
I think a lot of drivers ignore the walk/don't walk signs and just go
on green, regardless of who may be trying to get across the
intersection. At least that's been my experience more often than not.
>> I don't try to cross intersections illegally.
>
>show me where I said I am crossing intersections illegally in my previous
>posts please
You didn't, and that's not the issue here, IMO.
>> The primary key, don't do anything unexpected and make sure you are seen
>by
>> the drivers, and make sure you make eye contact to insure they see you.
>
> When again is crossing a crosswalk using the *walk* light considered
>unexpected? And how are you suppose to make eye contact with some fool dead
>set on rolling thru the red doing a right turn thats looking left the whole
>time.
You just need to be aware that there are a lot of fools driving out there,
and watch out for yourself...because they are not watching out for you, for
the most part.
>> If you wish to play chicken with automobiles on your bicycle, go right
>> ahead, but you'll just lose in the end.
>
>I`m not playing chicken. Im amusing myself and having alot of fun at it.
I still think it's a stupid way to amuse yourself...of course, I amuse myself
by fishing, which some people might think is equally as stupid...I know my
wife does. ;-)
SS
Peter S. Saly
"Al Iverson" <ive...@stop.mail-abuse.org> wrote in message
news:iverson-1007...@10.0.0.2...
> In article <smiov6...@corp.supernews.com>, "Peter S. Saly"
> <Pe...@Saly.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > 1) Anyone cutting me off while I am legally and rightfullly using a
> > crosswalk is the one at fault..
>
Yup
Feel VERY DEAD indeed.. :-)
I read a motorcycle.
The only way to survive, is to assume that EVERY other vehiclle is out
to get you, wether they really want to or not..
After a while taht kind of over the shoulder paranoia carries over to any
situatio where cars are movin in your vicinity, even when you are on foot..
Scott Smith
>My ex-boyfriend was cute, funny, sweet, fun to be with, ect ect...but had
>one fatal flaw:
>
>He drove, oblivious to others around him, in the left lane.
>
>He drove slow, and he would never change to the slow lane. I would beg,
>plead, whine, bitch, ask nicely and even tried bribing him with sex. None of
>it worked, so I dumped him.
>
>Hes out there now, somewhere, blocking traffic for miles and driving like an
>asshole. I hope some gun nut shoots out his tires. (large green late mdel
>Tahoe/Blazer type truck, northwestern mpls suburbs)
Ha! I love it!
Whether or not it's true, it made me laugh...especially the "gun nut"
comment.
mn.general humor at it's finest. Thanks. :-)
SS
Mary
one fatal flaw:
He drove, oblivious to others around him, in the left lane.
He drove slow, and he would never change to the slow lane. I would beg,
plead, whine, bitch, ask nicely and even tried bribing him with sex. None of
it worked, so I dumped him.
Hes out there now, somewhere, blocking traffic for miles and driving like an
asshole. I hope some gun nut shoots out his tires. (large green late mdel
Tahoe/Blazer type truck, northwestern mpls suburbs)
...
If God intended for us to vote, we'd have been given canidates.
in article k8295.7549$9e5.1...@typhoon.mn.mediaone.net, AnnE Austin at
An...@mn.rr.com wrote on 7/6/00 11:06 AM:
Mary
it was a *very* big issue. It got so I had to drive everywhere so I could
have peace of mind.
I am hyper-aware; he was like I said, oblivious.
So, Im single now. If any good drivers out there would like to meet a really
polite, non-tailgater, non-road raged, non-cell phone owner, let me know.
I'll drive you wild.
lol.
in article faqkms0mqfpl79emv...@4ax.com, Scott Smith at
scott...@visi.com wrote on 7/10/00 7:27 PM:
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 00:11:14 GMT, Mary <maryi...@earthlinky.org> wrote:
>
>> My ex-boyfriend was cute, funny, sweet, fun to be with, ect ect...but had
>> one fatal flaw:
>>
>> He drove, oblivious to others around him, in the left lane.
>>
>> He drove slow, and he would never change to the slow lane. I would beg,
>> plead, whine, bitch, ask nicely and even tried bribing him with sex. None of
>> it worked, so I dumped him.
>>
>> Hes out there now, somewhere, blocking traffic for miles and driving like an
>> asshole. I hope some gun nut shoots out his tires. (large green late mdel
>> Tahoe/Blazer type truck, northwestern mpls suburbs)
>
sheldon
"Al Iverson" <ive...@stop.mail-abuse.org> wrote in message
news:iverson-1007...@10.0.0.2...
> In article <smiov6...@corp.supernews.com>, "Peter S. Saly"
> <Pe...@Saly.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > 1) Anyone cutting me off while I am legally and rightfullly using a
> > crosswalk is the one at fault..
>
> Yeah, you'd be dead right.
It's just one of them Darwinian evolution things...
Iconoclast
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
Bob Kline
people off, enforce the speed limit, prove his manhood, get into fistfights???
Inquiring minds want to know.
Scott Smith
>Mary wrote:
>
>> Oh its true. It may be true that I broke it off for more than just that, but
>> it was a *very* big issue. It got so I had to drive everywhere so I could
>> have peace of mind.
>>
>> I am hyper-aware; he was like I said, oblivious.
>>
>Obviously you discussed it with him. What was his logic? Did he just want to tic
>people off, enforce the speed limit, prove his manhood, get into fistfights???
>Inquiring minds want to know.
Maybe he's just like a large portion of the Minnesota driving population...
oblivious to the surroundings and clueless about how to drive with
others around them.
SS
CJSonnack
> I am curious, why do you blame law abiding left lane campers for these
> accidents and not the illegally speeding road raging fools?
Because people who obstruct traffic--for whatever reason--are fools, too.
And it's a *fact* that they cause accidents.
> So smooth flowing traffic of an unlawful speed is preferable to traffic
> moving at a steady, lawful rate?
Smooth with lawful speeds is better than smooth with unlawful speeds. But
smooth with unlawful speeds is better than obstructed at any speed. Given
the *reality* of driving, smooth is way better.
>> According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, impeding
>> the flow of traffic is illegal in most states, meaning that drivers can
>> be cited for blocking other motorists, including speeders.
>
> Sure that ain't 'impeding the "lawful" flow of traffic', skippy?
If, as the man said, a motorist can be cited for blocking speeders, than
I guess the law pretty clearly doesn't read that way. Skippy.
> I think the issue here is more about those who feel that they have the
> right to break the law and go the speed they feel is right.
No, that's not the issue. The issue is blocking traffic. It's stupid,
it's dangerous and it's rude. It is even, depending on your state and
interpretation, always illegal.
--
___ CJS __________ Chris(a)Sonnack{dot}com ___ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___
__________________________________________________________________________
___ If riding in a plane is flying, then riding in a boat is swimming. ___
___ To experience the element, GET OUT OF THE VEHICLE! ___
CJSonnack
> My grandma is out there with foggy vision and a 3-second reaction time,
> and folks have to go slow enough to deal with her.
John, with all respect for your grandma, the old saying about the heat
of the kitchen applies. Freeway driving is not for everyone. Driving
at all is not for everyone.
> The law states that anyone who speeds gives up any other right-of-
> way that they would otherwise have.
Sure. Understood. But this isn't about legal right-of-way. It is
about each driver participating in the driving environment. There
seems to be a "natural speed" for any given road and driving condition.
People *will* drive at that speed, most of em. That's reality, and
it's not likely to change. So the next level is getting that to happen
as smoothly as possible.
CJSonnack
Ya ever play that game, telephone...
>>>> Watch an auto race sometime. [...] More often than not, another
>>>> accident will soon follow, during that period when the cars are all
>>>> bunched up. On the other hand, once the cars have had a chance to
>>>> spread out, with the faster ones moving out front, accidents usually
>>>> only occur due to mechanical failures.
So this guys says--and supplies a good example for, "when cars are in a
bunch, accidents are more likely."
The response is
>>> People exhibit heard-like mentality. They tend to go from spread
>>> out conditions and bunch-up.
Doesn't reply to to OP, but adds a new statement, "cars on the freeway
tend to bunch up." Which is certainly true, we've all seen it.
This responder then adds:
>>> Watch on the freeway how there can be one car going 1MPH below
>>> the speed limit, and within a few minutes, there will be a whole
>>> group of cars bunched up following this one person.
Which seems to me a reasonable amplification of the point. I've seen
it happen. Cars *do* tend to herd, and *do* tend to "fix" on another
vehicle (kind of like rain drops condense on particles).
And somewhere back there, the OPs point, 'accidents are more common
in bunches of cars.'
Now it vears off in a new direction:
>> 1MPH below the speed limit? There's that reality thing again. Few
>> people drive 1MPH below the speed limit, most drive 5MPH above the
>> limit, some even faster. Again, not LEGAL, but REALITY. If a stream
>> of water is moving at 70MPH and you suddenly obstruct that flow, you
>> end up with a flood, or the obstruction simply gets swept away.
We've gone from the race track to the freeway and have a driver going
along at 54 MPH with a bunch of cars behind him... and this poster is
unhappy about it, possibly because:
> The thing is, that driver going 1mph under the limit in the left lane
> *is* obstructing the flow of traffic that's going 5mph over the limit,
Apparently this guy got from a bunch of cars on the racetrack to the
*left* lane of the freeway and is driving along at 54 MPH with a herd
of cars behind him. Bastard!
Interesting how quickly it comes back to the expression of ones agenda.
> ... I have come to believe that there are many people in this
> state that have been conditioned to think that obstructing traffic in
> the left lane is OK.
I'd go so far as to say Minnesotans have a kind of "obstructionalist"
mentality. It has a good side in slowing things down (at least, I
think that's good), but it can be annoying sometimes. It's kind of
a salt-of-the-earth, small-town, stop-and-smell-the-roses-damn-ya
sort of thing. Very midwestern, but found world-wide.
CJSonnack
> Sheesh, why don't people stay home? <G>
A friend of mine has a saying, "Other people shouldn't be allowed to drive!"
CJSonnack
>>> Are you saying that you find keeping to the right is a safer way to
>>> drive, or keeping in the left lane is safer?
Keeping to any lane is basically safer, because a lane change perturbs
the traffic flow more than the changes in speed from staying in a lane.
That's basic physics.
The left lane is safer than the right lane(s) because there are fewer
changes into it and because there is no lane crossing (discounting
the infrequent left lane exit). That is also simple physics.
Therefore, staying in the left lane, strictly speaking, is the *safest*
place to drive. (Which needs to be balanced by traffic standards and
rules and customs.)
> I think when traffic is truly bumper-to-bumper, it goes without saying
> that the "keep right" rule wouldn't apply. Although, other than rush
> hours in the metro area, I don't run into actual bumper-to-bumper
> traffic around here all that often.
If you're saying "keep right" should only not apply during rush hour,
we're still in disagreement. I support "keep right" on rural roads,
but not on metro. At any time.
> The drivers that catch my attention are the ones that hold up
> everyone else in the left lane,...
What if they aren't holding everyone else up?
What if they "camp" (your term) in the left lane but always more
over if someone faster comes along?
Scott Smith
>Scott Smith, et alii, wrote:
>
>Ya ever play that game, telephone...
<snip>
>> The thing is, that driver going 1mph under the limit in the left lane
>> *is* obstructing the flow of traffic that's going 5mph over the limit,
>
>Apparently this guy got from a bunch of cars on the racetrack to the
>*left* lane of the freeway and is driving along at 54 MPH with a herd
>of cars behind him. Bastard!
>
>Interesting how quickly it comes back to the expression of ones agenda.
Silly me, I guess I should have ignored the title and topic of this
thread when I replied. <g>
You're starting to remind me of Sisyphus and his boulder, and I'm
your boulder in this newsgroup. You seem to be intent on replying
to my posts, without ever making much of a point. You just keep
pushing that boulder up the hill without ever reaching any destination.
Keep pushing, Sisyphus...you might make it there some day. ;-)
SS
Mary
here.
I can only say that he was the type of person that was always sort of
unaware of what was going on. He was bright, and charming and all those
other things I said, but just not willing or able to acknowledge his
surroundings. It was not a "Me! My lane! Screw you!" it was more like:
"ok, Im driving and my exit is in 20 miles so I'll just stay here."
You know the type? Might have mirrors on vehicle, but would take 3 or more
weeks to notice if they were suddenly gone?
in article 396B69D0...@mn.mediaone.net, Bob Kline at
bobk...@mn.mediaone.net wrote on 7/11/00 12:37 PM:
Mary
:::sigh::::
in article 2mfnmsg8j0cf6n8sg...@4ax.com, Scott Smith at
sc...@wwwebworld.com wrote on 7/11/00 7:43 PM:
CJSonnack
> You know the type? Might have mirrors on vehicle, but would take 3 or
> more weeks to notice if they were suddenly gone?
Maybe he ascribed to the old adage: Never look back, something might be
gaining on you...
Scott Smith
>Mary wrote:
>
>> You know the type? Might have mirrors on vehicle, but would take 3 or
>> more weeks to notice if they were suddenly gone?
>
>Maybe he ascribed to the old adage: Never look back, something might be
>gaining on you...
And in his case, that would be *everybody* gaining on him. ;-)
John A. Weeks III
> "John A. Weeks III" wrote:
>
> > My grandma is out there with foggy vision and a 3-second reaction time,
> > and folks have to go slow enough to deal with her.
>
> John, with all respect for your grandma, the old saying about the heat
> of the kitchen applies. Freeway driving is not for everyone. Driving
> at all is not for everyone.
Chris...I fully understand and support the point that you are making
in this reply. In fact, I think I agree with a few others who have
posted back (or E-mail privately) that driving skills tests should
be part of the periodic license renewal.
The point that I tried to make, but apparently missed, is that
no matter how bad some of these drivers might be, including my
hypothetical grandma, the laws allow these people to be out on
the road. The driving habits and laws are not going to work if
the speeds and reaction times required are something that only
30% or even 70% of the population possesses. Rather, we need
to keep speeds down and highway complexity low in order to
accomodate the less skilled drivers (no matter how stupid it
might be to allow them on the road, they are there). Studies
have shown that large differences in speed cause accidents.
The result is that highway law is made to reduce these large
differences by holding the speed limit down. Since we cannot
make bad drivers better, the only American thing to do is put
caps on the good drivers to hold them back.
-john-
--
====================================================================
John A. Weeks III 612-891-2382 jo...@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications FAX 612-953-4289 http://www.johnweeks.com
====================================================================
Bob Kline
progressively faster drivers moving to the left lane(s). And no one seems to get
road rage when they get lights blinked at them from behind. They know to move over.
I don't know whether their accident rate differs from ours but at least they don't
appear to be as clueless (as too many Minnesota drivers). I have some friends who
are left lane campers. I guess they are like Mary's ex-boy friend -- oblivious. But
in other respects, they aren't dummies. And they know that if we are going
somewhere that I will drive because I just can't be in a car that's being driven so
cluelessly. Yet we remain friends.
Scott Smith
>The Europeans seem able to convince slower drivers to stay to the right with
>progressively faster drivers moving to the left lane(s). And no one seems to get
>road rage when they get lights blinked at them from behind. They know to move over.
>I don't know whether their accident rate differs from ours but at least they don't
>appear to be as clueless (as too many Minnesota drivers).
During the two years I lived in Germany (near Stuttgart), driving in that country
was a real pleasure, and the beginning of my indoctrination into just how bad
Minnesota driving is. After living in Los Angeles for a year, where driving was also
noticeably better than Minnesota, Germany was my next "out of state experience".
On the autobahn I would regularly have my VW Jetta up to around 100mph,
and wouldn't even dare get in the left lane unless passing. It was clear on
the autobahn that the left lane was designated for faster passing traffic only, as
it should be. Of course, they also had one of the most beautiful freeway systems
I have ever seen, often with up to eight lanes in each direction in busier areas.
A nice vision of what a good freeway system can be.
I then went on to live in several U.S. cities for a while, but eventually made my way
back home to Minneapolis. After my travels, I have become aware of just how
poor the driving skills of the locals here really are. It's something that I've come to
accept as just the way things are here, but it still doesn't mean I have to like it, or
that I won't support local legislators that are trying to do what they can to improve it.
I still have faith that many Minnesotans can be conditioned to drive better, and to
catch up with the rest of the world in that respect.
>I have some friends who
>are left lane campers. I guess they are like Mary's ex-boy friend -- oblivious. But
>in other respects, they aren't dummies. And they know that if we are going
>somewhere that I will drive because I just can't be in a car that's being driven so
>cluelessly. Yet we remain friends.
I have family who are left lane campers, and the rule is if we are going someplace
together, either my wife or I will drive. Most of the friends I ride with don't seem to
have much of a problem with following the general rules of the road.
SS
Eddie Auerbach
> The Europeans seem able to convince slower drivers to stay to the
> right with progressively faster drivers moving to the left lane(s).
> And no one seems to get road rage when they get lights blinked at
> them from behind.
Nevertheless, that is illegal (at least in Germany).
--
/ Eddie Auerbach --- e...@mail.com --- http://www.cmrr.umn.edu/~eja/ \
\ Center for Magnetic Resonance Research -- University of Minnesota /
/ 2021 6th Street S.E., Minneapolis, MN 55455-3007 -- (612)626-2001 \
Eddie Auerbach
> Of course, they also had one of the most beautiful freeway systems I
> have ever seen, often with up to eight lanes in each direction in
> busier areas. A nice vision of what a good freeway system can be.
Having your cities bombed all to hell does free up space for road
construction.
Peter S. Saly
"Eddie Auerbach" <e...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:396E385...@mail.com...
> Scott Smith wrote:
>
> > Of course, they also had one of the most beautiful freeway systems I
> > have ever seen, often with up to eight lanes in each direction in
> > busier areas. A nice vision of what a good freeway system can be.
>
> Having your cities bombed all to hell does free up space for road
> construction.
In the countryside ??
you are MORE than CONFUSED...
Much of the Authbahn system was begine BEFORE the war....
Eddie Auerbach
>
> "Eddie Auerbach" <e...@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:396E385...@mail.com...
> > Scott Smith wrote:
> >
> > > Of course, they also had one of the most beautiful freeway systems I
> > > have ever seen, often with up to eight lanes in each direction in
> > > busier areas. A nice vision of what a good freeway system can be.
> >
> > Having your cities bombed all to hell does free up space for road
> > construction.
>
> In the countryside ??
>
> you are MORE than CONFUSED...
Would you say countryside == busier areas? Are people really up in
arms because there isn't an eight-lane superhighway from Bemidji to
Fargo or something?
> Much of the Authbahn system was begine BEFORE the war....
That's pretty much the point. Construction on the Interstate Highway
System in the US didn't peak until the 1960's. By then, the highways
had to be built around the existing cities. The cities that did grow
around the highways (think Florida and California) are the ones being
held up as "ideals" here. If you want to double the capacity of I94
from St Paul to Minneapolis, though, you're going to have to knock
down the capitol building, etc.
Iconoclast
European countries ALSO have a far more excellent mass
transportation system than here If I want to go really fast over
there, I can get on a train that will outru any car. But the
petroleum and auto industries didn't want it here, so it either
didnt get built or was choked to death. You want slow drvers off
the road, give them an alternative. But the pigheaded attitude of
auto drivers is that if I don't get a DIRECT benefit of
something, I don't care if it exists. Well, the other shoe is
coming down pretty hard. You've forced everybody out there onto
the road with you, many of whom do not nor ever will share your
philosophy. Next time it is biting, remember to say "I and
people like me CREATED ths mess".
Spuddie
<jim_mork_e...@yahoo.com.invalid> a scripturient epopee with
orgulous glossolalia, quackled jimpricutely and said:
>I think what many of you are failing to recognize is that
>European countries ALSO have a far more excellent mass
>transportation system than here If I want to go really fast over
>there, I can get on a train that will outru any car. But the
>petroleum and auto industries didn't want it here, so it either
>didnt get built or was choked to death.
A mass transit system such as subways and trains might work in some
places in this country, but not others...we Americans value the
freedom of owning our own vehicles and being able to drive where we
want to when we want to without having to depend on someone else's
schedule, be it a subway, a bus, train or even car-pooling. I
personally think it's odd that car-pooling isn't more common
here...but basically, we're spoiled.
As an example, look at the new subway system that was built in LA
trying to get some of those cars off the freeways...the thing sits
there practically empty and unused!! Aside from the fact that we
Americans love our cars and the freedom they provide, it was
apparently quite poorly planned and doesn't really go anywhere that
the people want to go. I seem to recall reading an article somewhere
about the underusage of mass transit systems in many areas of the
country...so it's not just a question of having the mass transit
methods there, it's a quesiton of changing attitudes and
long-ingrained habits.
It seems that in many areas, mass transit is used mostly by the lower
income groups who can't afford a vehicle anyway (or more than one
vehicle per family) and students and such...my husband was a bus
driver in and around London, England for years and now is a part-time
driver here in Duluth. He said you just don't see the guys in suits
with briefcases on the bus here like you did in London...here it's
mostly old people, kids, the mentally infirm with the odd sprinkling
of 'mainstream' looking people using the buses. In Europe, most
people who have vehicles still take the bus or train to work and use
their cars for recreational purposes...of course with gas the price it
is there, there isn't much choice. On the US east coast in some of
the larger cities there, I think it's probably closer to the same as
London.
Also, our country is a lot bigger and more spread out than European
countries...just getting the infrastructure in place for a truly
effective mass transit system in some areas would be a staggering
cost.
>You want slow drvers off
>the road, give them an alternative. But the pigheaded attitude of
>auto drivers is that if I don't get a DIRECT benefit of
>something, I don't care if it exists. Well, the other shoe is
>coming down pretty hard. You've forced everybody out there onto
>the road with you, many of whom do not nor ever will share your
>philosophy. Next time it is biting, remember to say "I and
>people like me CREATED ths mess".
Nah, I don't think I'll remember to say that...I'll just continue to
mutter and swear and use sign language to show my 'pleasure' that
they're sharing the road with me. Much more fun.
Cheryl
~~~A difference that makes no difference is no difference.~~~
(Mr. Spock)
Mike J Tietel
Eddie Auerbach <e...@mail.com> writes:
> That's pretty much the point. Construction on the Interstate Highway
> System in the US didn't peak until the 1960's. By then, the highways
> had to be built around the existing cities. The cities that did grow
> around the highways (think Florida and California) are the ones being
> held up as "ideals" here. If you want to double the capacity of I94
> from St Paul to Minneapolis, though, you're going to have to knock
> down the capitol building, etc.
>
The original design of the Interstate Highway system was much like the
German Autobahn - high speed traffic *between* cities.
Eisenhower originally proposed the system for military use and the
highways tended to avoid cities. However, to get funding many compromises
were needed and civilian use began to take priority. I-94 cutting
through the downtowns is the result...
--
m...@adc.com
Peter S. Saly
> "Peter S. Saly" wrote:
> >
> > "Eddie Auerbach" <e...@mail.com> wrote in message
> > news:396E385...@mail.com...
> > > Scott Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > > Of course, they also had one of the most beautiful freeway systems I
> > > > have ever seen, often with up to eight lanes in each direction in
> > > > busier areas. A nice vision of what a good freeway system can be.
> > >
> > > Having your cities bombed all to hell does free up space for road
> > > construction.
> >
> > In the countryside ??
> >
> > you are MORE than CONFUSED...
>
> Would you say countryside == busier areas? Are people really up in
> arms because there isn't an eight-lane superhighway from Bemidji to
> Fargo or something?
>
>
> That's pretty much the point. Construction on the Interstate Highway
> System in the US didn't peak until the 1960's. By then, the highways
> had to be built around the existing cities. The cities that did grow
> around the highways (think Florida and California) are the ones being
> held up as "ideals" here. If you want to double the capacity of I94
> from St Paul to Minneapolis, though, you're going to have to knock
> down the capitol building, etc.
Too bad for you that most of the European cities were NOT razed to make ways
for highways a la west coast or the southwest..
But instead were mostly rebuilt along the lines they occupied before the
war.
Euroean highway access is much more like older ciites in North America where
the Highways came AFTER the cities were well established..
Peter S. Saly
"Iconoclast" <jim_mork_e...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:07a28b28...@usw-ex0105-040.remarq.com...
> I think what many of you are failing to recognize is that
> European countries ALSO have a far more excellent mass
> transportation system than here If I want to go really fast over
> there, I can get on a train that will outru any car. But the
> petroleum and auto industries didn't want it here, so it either
> the road, give them an alternative. But the pigheaded attitude of
> auto drivers is that if I don't get a DIRECT benefit of
> something, I don't care if it exists. Well, the other shoe is
> coming down pretty hard. You've forced everybody out there onto
> the road with you, many of whom do not nor ever will share your
> philosophy. Next time it is biting, remember to say "I and
> people like me CREATED ths mess".
Agree completely..
After living on the east coast where in Montreal and New York (among others)
I could get aroung more cheaply and quickly with public transit, that I did
not even own a car after I got over the teenage/young adult need to own one,
It was somehat depressing to arrrive in Minneapolis where a car is a
necessity, and being surronded by drivers who behave like theyr are chewing
their cuds in the middle of a field..
Peter S. Saly
"Spuddie" <spu...@england.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:ju6umsoohp68dpdd2...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 06:20:59 -0700, Iconoclast
> <jim_mork_e...@yahoo.com.invalid> a scripturient epopee with
> orgulous glossolalia, quackled jimpricutely and said:
>
> >European countries ALSO have a far more excellent mass
> >transportation system than here If I want to go really fast over
> >there, I can get on a train that will outru any car. But the
> >petroleum and auto industries didn't want it here, so it either
> >didnt get built or was choked to death.
>
> places in this country, but not others...we Americans value the
> freedom of owning our own vehicles and being able to drive where we
> want to when we want to without having to depend on someone else's
> schedule, be it a subway, a bus, train or even car-pooling. I
> personally think it's odd that car-pooling isn't more common
> here...but basically, we're spoiled.
>
You OUBVILOUSLY, have NOT lived with a system where the schedule is so
frequent during normal hours that, for all intent and purpose, there is NO
schedule to speak of..
> As an example, look at the new subway system that was built in LA
> trying to get some of those cars off the freeways...the thing sits
> there practically empty and unused!! Aside from the fact that we
> Americans love our cars and the freedom they provide, it was
> apparently quite poorly planned and doesn't really go anywhere that
> the people want to go. I seem to recall reading an article somewhere
> about the underusage of mass transit systems in many areas of the
> country...so it's not just a question of having the mass transit
> methods there, it's a quesiton of changing attitudes and
> long-ingrained habits.
>
The biggest problem with the LA system is that you need population DENSITY
to make it work...
Look more closely at the trolley system in Minneapolis..
Where the trolleys ran, Density developped...
Where they did not run, you had NO development to speak of..
Running such a system in an ALREADY developped area has the probleme that
your density is already established at a thin level, that will NOT change
unless something drastic happens..
To get an appropriate payoff on the LA system, you need a major earthquake,
joined to some serous re-zoning for multiple unit dwellings along the
transporation paths..
> It seems that in many areas, mass transit is used mostly by the lower
> income groups who can't afford a vehicle anyway (or more than one
> vehicle per family) and students and such...my husband was a bus
> driver in and around London, England for years and now is a part-time
> driver here in Duluth. He said you just don't see the guys in suits
> with briefcases on the bus here like you did in London...here it's
> mostly old people, kids, the mentally infirm with the odd sprinkling
> of 'mainstream' looking people using the buses. In Europe, most
> people who have vehicles still take the bus or train to work and use
> their cars for recreational purposes...of course with gas the price it
> is there, there isn't much choice. On the US east coast in some of
> the larger cities there, I think it's probably closer to the same as
> London.
>
Obviously your evaluation of ridership is NOT based on FACT.
It is clearly based on preconceived notions to justify your position..
A bad case of these are the conclusions on which I base my facts...
> Also, our country is a lot bigger and more spread out than European
> countries...just getting the infrastructure in place for a truly
> effective mass transit system in some areas would be a staggering
> cost.
>
Particularly when it is NOT planned in from the get-go and instead is
IMPOSED after the fact..
Nonetheless..
There is a NEED to implement better mass trasint fr the future, because
the present system is so inefficient and expensive that it will soon outgrow
the countires' ability to support it..
> >You want slow drvers off
> >the road, give them an alternative. But the pigheaded attitude of
> >auto drivers is that if I don't get a DIRECT benefit of
> >something, I don't care if it exists. Well, the other shoe is
> >coming down pretty hard. You've forced everybody out there onto
> >the road with you, many of whom do not nor ever will share your
> >philosophy. Next time it is biting, remember to say "I and
> >people like me CREATED ths mess".
>
sheldon
> places in this country, but not others...we Americans value the
> freedom of owning our own vehicles and being able to drive where we
> want to when we want to without having to depend on someone else's
> schedule, be it a subway, a bus, train or even car-pooling. I
In London the trains were coming once ever 3-5 minutes throughout the day.
There's no way I could have driven across town as fast as I could use the
tube.
I had a similar experience in Chicago when I was there on vacation.
Today I sat in traffic on 35 because of some accident ahead. My car only
goes as fast as the person in front of me.... or in this case the 1,000 cars
sitting in front of me.
> the people want to go. I seem to recall reading an article somewhere
> about the underusage of mass transit systems in many areas of the
> country...so it's not just a question of having the mass transit
> methods there, it's a quesiton of changing attitudes and
> long-ingrained habits.
Go to Chicago, New York, etc. with mass transit that has been there a while
and you won't see a lack of use there.
> It seems that in many areas, mass transit is used mostly by the lower
> income groups who can't afford a vehicle anyway (or more than one
> vehicle per family) and students and such...my husband was a bus
> driver in and around London, England for years and now is a part-time
> driver here in Duluth. He said you just don't see the guys in suits
> with briefcases on the bus here like you did in London...here it's
> mostly old people, kids, the mentally infirm with the odd sprinkling
> of 'mainstream' looking people using the buses. In Europe, most
> people who have vehicles still take the bus or train to work and use
> their cars for recreational purposes...of course with gas the price it
> is there, there isn't much choice. On the US east coast in some of
> the larger cities there, I think it's probably closer to the same as
> London.
You're probably correct there. Although when I took the bus to downtown
Minneapolis there was a large variety of people riding it, many of them in
suits.
> Also, our country is a lot bigger and more spread out than European
> countries...just getting the infrastructure in place for a truly
> effective mass transit system in some areas would be a staggering
> cost.
Of course the fact that we've just spent the past 30 years ripping up
railroad beds and turning them into bike paths, and convert train stations
into luxury hotels probably hasn't helped in that regard.
CJSonnack
>> Interesting how quickly it comes back to the expression of ones agenda.
>
> Silly me, I guess I should have ignored the title and topic of this
> thread when I replied. <g>
Well, that would have been one option...
Another would have been ignoring that particular point.
A better option, imo, would be replying to the point.
> You're starting to remind me of Sisyphus and his boulder, and I'm
> your boulder in this newsgroup.
You think far to highly of yourself. I don't spend much time or
effort thinking *anything* about you. I just answer the posts that
elicit a reply. You write a lot here, so averages alone mean you
will get a lot of my replies. We see the world differently, so
naturally most of our exchanges are debates.
> You seem to be intent on replying to my posts, without ever making
> much of a point.
I think I've made my points. But threads tend to go on and on with
everyone endlessly repeating their points. It gets old, and I reach
a point where having had my say, I turn to other amusements. Such
as poking fun at other posters.
Don't like it? Two words: Kill. File.
> You just keep pushing that boulder up the hill without ever
> reaching any destination.
I reached the destination I had in mind.
Iconoclast
you recall that its a democracy, and if some are more equal than
others, it is mainly by virtue of their to throw tons of money at
the political process.Now in a fight between you and AARP, who do
you think is likely to win? Well, if you don't know, the
politicians do. So, don't get your hopes up too high. The fact
is that the splinter group that wants easy passage at 70 or 80
mph on the highway really doesnt swing that much influence. In
certain close elections, some politician who is excessively
imprssed with his smarts may pander to that group, but the push
and shove of the political process will ultimately give the truer
reading of the correlation of power. And out of that will come th
result that people will drive where they want.
I mean, how ya gonna prevent it? With the state patrol? Well,
try to remember THEY are the ones not enforcing the speed laws a
the present time. So, you're relying on the same people who
should, by present laws, be ticketing you for driving the speed
your are driving. They aren't. They don't want that much work.
And because they don't, they wont do anything to people who drive
"too slow" in the left lane.
Sorry to be a bearer of bad news, but that's the way it is.
CJSonnack
>>> You know the type? Might have mirrors on vehicle, but would take 3 or
>>> more weeks to notice if they were suddenly gone?
>>
>> Maybe he ascribed to the old adage: Never look back, something might be
>> gaining on you...
>
> And in his case, that would be *everybody* gaining on him. ;-)
[bwg]
CJSonnack
> The point that I tried to make, but apparently missed, is that
> no matter how bad some of these drivers might be, including my
> hypothetical grandma, the laws allow these people to be out on
> the road.
You are absolutely right about the spread of driving ability on
the road. I see the effect of that almost every day.
> we need to keep speeds down and highway complexity low in order
> to accomodate the less skilled drivers (no matter how stupid it
> might be to allow them on the road, they are there).
Is that our only option, though? "Dumbing down" driving? Another
option is to decide, well, perhaps not everyone can drive.
> Since we cannot make bad drivers better, the only American thing
> to do is put caps on the good drivers to hold them back.
Well, it is frequently the American thing to cater to the lowest
common denominator. I'd think a *more* American thing to do would
be to make an effort to educate drivers and to create a climate
where driving skill was considered important. This seems to work
in other places. Why not here?
Spuddie
after scrumping a potomophilus comboloio, grabbed a nayward hegumen
and chanted:
>> A mass transit system such as subways and trains might work in some
>> places in this country, but not others...we Americans value the
>> freedom of owning our own vehicles and being able to drive where we
>> want to when we want to without having to depend on someone else's
>> schedule, be it a subway, a bus, train or even car-pooling. I
>> personally think it's odd that car-pooling isn't more common
>> here...but basically, we're spoiled.
>You OUBVILOUSLY, have NOT lived with a system where the schedule is so
>frequent during normal hours that, for all intent and purpose, there is NO
>schedule to speak of..
No, I OUBVILOUSLY haven't...at least, not where I actually used the
system. I've lived in San Diego and the Tampa, FL area but didn't use
mass transit there because it wasn't convenient. Mostly I've been a
country hick (where "mass transit" means the horse trailer has more
than one animal in it) or lived in smaller cities (like Duluth) with
more limited mass transit options.
>Look more closely at the trolley system in Minneapolis..
> Where the trolleys ran, Density developped...
> Where they did not run, you had NO development to speak of..
>Running such a system in an ALREADY developped area has the probleme that
>your density is already established at a thin level, that will NOT change
>unless something drastic happens..
So like the Field of Dreams, we should build it and they will come?
Build a mass transit system and let the city develop around it? That
might work (it does on Sim City anyway....) but it doesn't do much to
alleviate the problems already in existence in many (very spread-out)
cities, does it?
>> It seems that in many areas, mass transit is used mostly by the lower
>> income groups who can't afford a vehicle anyway (or more than one
>> vehicle per family) and students and such...my husband was a bus
>> driver in and around London, England for years and now is a part-time
>> driver here in Duluth. He said you just don't see the guys in suits
>> with briefcases on the bus here like you did in London...here it's
>> mostly old people, kids, the mentally infirm with the odd sprinkling
>> of 'mainstream' looking people using the buses. In Europe, most
>> people who have vehicles still take the bus or train to work and use
>> their cars for recreational purposes...of course with gas the price it
>> is there, there isn't much choice. On the US east coast in some of
>> the larger cities there, I think it's probably closer to the same as
>> London.
>>
>
>Obviously your evaluation of ridership is NOT based on FACT.
Of course not! I said it was based on observation, and that just a
passing comment from my husband who happens to be a busdriver...no, he
doesn't sit there with a clipboard and 'classify' everyone who steps
on his bus. And no, I don't sit around reading studies about bus
ridership in my spare time....cripes!
> It is clearly based on preconceived notions to justify your position..
> A bad case of these are the conclusions on which I base my facts...
You must be really desperate to pick a fight...I don't even *have* a
position! Just making some passing comments is all.
>> Also, our country is a lot bigger and more spread out than European
>> countries...just getting the infrastructure in place for a truly
>> effective mass transit system in some areas would be a staggering
>> cost.
>Particularly when it is NOT planned in from the get-go and instead is
>IMPOSED after the fact..
Okay, let's test your theory....you go build some really slick mass
transit systems in the middle of Nebraska and we'll see if the density
builds up around them.
>Nonetheless..
> There is a NEED to implement better mass trasint fr the future, because
>the present system is so inefficient and expensive that it will soon outgrow
>the countires' ability to support it..
You don't need to convince me of the fact that the infrastructure is
slowly crumbling. However, what works in one area is not going to
work in another...this is more of a local/regional issue than a
national one. IMO, of course. YMMV.
Cheryl
~~~Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes.~~~
(Henry David Thoreau)
Spuddie
<ssheldon...@frontiernet.net> after scrumping a potomophilus
comboloio, grabbed a nayward hegumen and chanted:
>
>"Spuddie" <spu...@england.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
>news:ju6umsoohp68dpdd2...@4ax.com...
>> A mass transit system such as subways and trains might work in some
>> places in this country, but not others...we Americans value the
>> freedom of owning our own vehicles and being able to drive where we
>> want to when we want to without having to depend on someone else's
>> schedule, be it a subway, a bus, train or even car-pooling. I
>
>In London the trains were coming once ever 3-5 minutes throughout the day.
>There's no way I could have driven across town as fast as I could use the
>tube.
Well yes...the trains come every 3-5 minutes, but they aren't all
going to where you want to go now are they? I know I've waited a half
hour or forty minutes to catch the particular train I needed at
Charing Cross station in London on more than one occasion.
>I had a similar experience in Chicago when I was there on vacation.
Indeed...but again, we're comparing apples to oranges. Both the
Chicaago/Cook County area and London have populations nearly twice
that of all of Minnesota, nevermind just the Twin Cities area!
Stuffing that many people into one place makes it much more difficult
to move and thus using mass transit is sometimes literally the *only*
option.
>Today I sat in traffic on 35 because of some accident ahead. My car only
>goes as fast as the person in front of me.... or in this case the 1,000 cars
>sitting in front of me.
This is true. It's one of the things I enjoy about living in a
smaller city...we have "rush minute" instead of "rush hour" and it's
usually worse on Saturday afternoon trying to get to the Mall than at
any other time. :) Then again, an accident as you said can affect
traffic for a long time and no amount of planning can change
that...heck, a bus or two could easily get caught in the traffic jam
too, so mass transit might have little to no advantage for some. Now
if there were a train system or subway...then sure, the advantage
would be there.
I take it the bus system does not go where you need to go? If it did,
would you use it? Are you willing to pay higher taxes to support more
frequent routes, so that the bus to where you want to go runs every 15
minutes instead of less frequently to increase convenience?
>> the people want to go. I seem to recall reading an article somewhere
>> about the underusage of mass transit systems in many areas of the
>> country...so it's not just a question of having the mass transit
>> methods there, it's a quesiton of changing attitudes and
>> long-ingrained habits.
>
>Go to Chicago, New York, etc. with mass transit that has been there a while
>and you won't see a lack of use there.
See above...again, I don't recall when or where I read the article and
it may have been dealing with less-densely populated areas, smaller
cities and such, where you might have to wait an hour for the right
bus to come along.
>> It seems that in many areas, mass transit is used mostly by the lower
>> income groups who can't afford a vehicle anyway (or more than one
>> vehicle per family) and students and such...my husband was a bus
>> driver in and around London, England for years and now is a part-time
>> driver here in Duluth. He said you just don't see the guys in suits
>> with briefcases on the bus here like you did in London...here it's
>> mostly old people, kids, the mentally infirm with the odd sprinkling
>> of 'mainstream' looking people using the buses. In Europe, most
>> people who have vehicles still take the bus or train to work and use
>> their cars for recreational purposes...of course with gas the price it
>> is there, there isn't much choice. On the US east coast in some of
>> the larger cities there, I think it's probably closer to the same as
>> London.
>
>You're probably correct there. Although when I took the bus to downtown
>Minneapolis there was a large variety of people riding it, many of them in
>suits.
Well, Minneapolis is a *bit* bigger than Duluth. <G>
>> Also, our country is a lot bigger and more spread out than European
>> countries...just getting the infrastructure in place for a truly
>> effective mass transit system in some areas would be a staggering
>> cost.
>
>Of course the fact that we've just spent the past 30 years ripping up
>railroad beds and turning them into bike paths, and convert train stations
>into luxury hotels probably hasn't helped in that regard.
Too true.
Cheryl
~~~The juggler comes closest to our hearts when he drops
the balls.~~~
John A. Weeks III
> John A. Weeks III...
> > we need to keep speeds down and highway complexity low in order
> > to accomodate the less skilled drivers (no matter how stupid it
> > might be to allow them on the road, they are there).
>
> Is that our only option, though? "Dumbing down" driving? Another
> option is to decide, well, perhaps not everyone can drive.
Chris...that is where our disconnect is. You are looking at options,
while I am looking at fact. My observation is on how things are
today, and what our government is doing today. I agree 100% that
there are better options, but exactly none of them are likely to
be put in place today, and hardly likely in our lifetimes. The
only real option is to deal with reality, and the reality is that
low skilled drivers are allowed and encouraged to drive.
> > Since we cannot make bad drivers better, the only American thing
> > to do is put caps on the good drivers to hold them back.
>
> Well, it is frequently the American thing to cater to the lowest
> common denominator. I'd think a *more* American thing to do would
> be to make an effort to educate drivers and to create a climate
> where driving skill was considered important. This seems to work
> in other places. Why not here?
Lets assume you started the most intensive and highest funded
education program ever designed to help drivers. Due to the
numbers, I would expect that it would take 5 years to notice
any real difference in driving, and 10 to 15 years to have
a significant impact. Yet, at the same time, the government
continues to put more and more low skilled and physically
impared people on the roads. What is our only option during
this transition period? Or until the education program you
suggest is officially passed and put into operation? This
is the problem with logistics...you have to deal with what
is, not with what might be. What might be is something left
to the dreamers, but those who are responsible for day to day
operations of the system have to deal with reality.
Mike H
news:397147A0...@Sonnack.com...
> John A. Weeks III...
>
> > The point that I tried to make, but apparently missed, is that
> > no matter how bad some of these drivers might be, including my
> > hypothetical grandma, the laws allow these people to be out on
> > the road.
>
> You are absolutely right about the spread of driving ability on
> the road. I see the effect of that almost every day.
> > Since we cannot make bad drivers better, the only American thing
> > to do is put caps on the good drivers to hold them back.
>
> Well, it is frequently the American thing to cater to the lowest
> common denominator. I'd think a *more* American thing to do would
> be to make an effort to educate drivers and to create a climate
Maybe completely off track, but that's never stopped anyone here before.
I look at a lot of things that deal with "human factors" as percentages.
Kinda like there are maybe .004% of all humans that are serial killers.
Just due to random quantum particles shifting around and bumping into DNA,
we end up with 4%. Not a lot, but as the sum total of humanity grows, so
is the raw number of serial killers. Same thing with bad drivers. There is
always going to be a group of poor drivers, a group of drivers that want to
go fast, and a group of drivers that want to slow those drivers down.
Unforntunately over the last 30 years, the net total of "drivers" in the
Twin Cities (and the Country for that matter) have been increasing. That
means we have more people that want to go fast, more people that can't drive
and do, and more people that want to keep people from driving too fast.
The kicker comes when you see that our roadway system hasn't kept up with
our "driver" popultion base. So now all of us speeders, slow downers, and
bad drivers are crunched together more and more on they highway. Little
wonder there are things going on these days that have been labled "road
rage". Because chances are that a certain percentage of the aggressive
drivers are also in to the percentage that are physically violent and then
throw in a driver who really doesn't or isn't capable of driving and you end
up with some doctor chasing an old lady down and popping her one in the
nose.
So what do you do about it? Now there is the question:
Build more roads?
Find a more effecient way of transporting people?
Short term I think more roads would be a wise investment. But they also
better start coming up with a way to move people around that utilizes
resources better and also gives people what they need without regard for
their ability to drive. Are current light rail systems the answer?
Doubtful. It's been done before and it's acceptance is really cultural.
How do we change the culture in Minnesota away from personal transportation?
Some real issues here and I don't know of anything that has currently been
proposed that will sove it.
Where are those dang energy matter transfer devices from Star Trek? Maybe
those would do the trick?
CJSonnack
> The idea "not everyone can drive" is an interesting one....until
> you recall that its a democracy, and if some are more equal than
> others, it is mainly by virtue of their to throw tons of money at
> the political process.
My step-son couldn't go on some rides at DisneyWorld because he was
too short. The idea that some people aren't *fit* to do certain
things does not conflict with the principles of democracy.
> And out of that will come th result that people will drive where
> they want.
Probably, but USENET is full of wishes and 'oughta be's. [shrug]
CJSonnack
>> Is that our only option, though? "Dumbing down" driving? Another
>> option is to decide, well, perhaps not everyone can drive.
>
> Chris...that is where our disconnect is.
I see what you mean, but I wonder if we're really that disconnected....
> ...the reality is that low skilled drivers are allowed and encouraged
> to drive.
(What makes you say "encouraged"?)
That is true (on "allowed" anyway). I think it is also a reality
that people will drive as fast as they think appropriate.
>>> Since we cannot make bad drivers better, the only American thing
>>> to do is put caps on the good drivers to hold them back.
The existing caps don't work and frequently aren't enforced. That
also seems to be reality.
>> I'd think a *more* American thing to do would be to make an effort
>> to educate drivers and to create a climate where driving skill was
>> considered important. This seems to work in other places.
>
> Lets assume you started the most intensive and highest funded
> education program ever designed to help drivers. Due to the
> numbers, I would expect that it would take 5 years to notice
> any real difference in driving, and 10 to 15 years to have
> a significant impact.
I agree, but it would be a start and would pay off eventually.
> Yet, at the same time, the government continues to put more and
> more low skilled and physically impared people on the roads.
You say "continues to put more low skilled..etc." You seem to be
suggesting the gov is creating a situation where the *percentage*
of bad drivers is getting greater. Do you think that?
If you mean the gov enables anyone to drive--as it always has--
then I agree.
> What is our only option during this transition period?
See? You're dealing with options, too.
You see the reality of bad and incapable drivers and believe the
best, or only, *option* is [1] for the faster drivers to slow down
on their own (not realistic at all) or [B] for the gov to put some
sort of caps in place (probably not realistic in light of the
current situation).
I see the reality of the same drivers and believe the best, or
only, option is to [A] restrict them (probably unrealistic for a
lot of reasons) or [2] educate them (probably also unrealistic
for financial/political reasons).
The bottom line, I think, is that there *is* no realistic option
that will make everyone happy. As with so many social problems,
a fix means pain for someone.
I'd just rather the pain be for the people causing the problem.
Peter S. Saly
> On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 14:33:41 -0600, "Peter S. Saly" <Pe...@Saly.com>
> and chanted:
>
> >> places in this country, but not others...we Americans value the
> >> freedom of owning our own vehicles and being able to drive where we
> >> want to when we want to without having to depend on someone else's
> >> schedule, be it a subway, a bus, train or even car-pooling. I
> >> here...but basically, we're spoiled.
>
> >You OUBVILOUSLY, have NOT lived with a system where the schedule is so
> >frequent during normal hours that, for all intent and purpose, there is
NO
> >schedule to speak of..
>
> No, I OUBVILOUSLY haven't...at least, not where I actually used the
> system. I've lived in San Diego and the Tampa, FL area but didn't use
> mass transit there because it wasn't convenient. Mostly I've been a
> country hick (where "mass transit" means the horse trailer has more
> than one animal in it) or lived in smaller cities (like Duluth) with
> more limited mass transit options.
>
> >Look more closely at the trolley system in Minneapolis..
> > Where the trolleys ran, Density developped...
> > Where they did not run, you had NO development to speak of..
> >Running such a system in an ALREADY developped area has the probleme that
> >your density is already established at a thin level, that will NOT change
> >unless something drastic happens..
>
> So like the Field of Dreams, we should build it and they will come?
> Build a mass transit system and let the city develop around it? That
> might work (it does on Sim City anyway....) but it doesn't do much to
> alleviate the problems already in existence in many (very spread-out)
> cities, does it?
>
Nope, it doesn't..
BUT the pronlem with sprawl, is taht a LOT of GOOD land is being paved..
And once paved, that land will probably never be usable as arable land.
In this country, the prime land is being paved over...
And it's a LIMITED resource...
So no it does NOT solve your short-term problems..
But it adresses LONG-term issues that NEED to be addresses for the ommon
good..
> >> It seems that in many areas, mass transit is used mostly by the lower
> >> income groups who can't afford a vehicle anyway (or more than one
> >> vehicle per family) and students and such...my husband was a bus
> >> driver in and around London, England for years and now is a part-time
> >> driver here in Duluth. He said you just don't see the guys in suits
> >> with briefcases on the bus here like you did in London...here it's
> >> mostly old people, kids, the mentally infirm with the odd sprinkling
> >> of 'mainstream' looking people using the buses. In Europe, most
> >> people who have vehicles still take the bus or train to work and use
> >> their cars for recreational purposes...of course with gas the price it
> >> is there, there isn't much choice. On the US east coast in some of
> >> the larger cities there, I think it's probably closer to the same as
> >> London.
> >>
> >
> >Obviously your evaluation of ridership is NOT based on FACT.
>
> Of course not! I said it was based on observation, and that just a
> passing comment from my husband who happens to be a busdriver...no, he
> doesn't sit there with a clipboard and 'classify' everyone who steps
> on his bus. And no, I don't sit around reading studies about bus
> ridership in my spare time....cripes!
>
Then maybe you shouln't pass uninformed comments about ridership...
> > It is clearly based on preconceived notions to justify your
position..
> > A bad case of these are the conclusions on which I base my
facts...
>
> You must be really desperate to pick a fight...I don't even *have* a
> position! Just making some passing comments is all.
>
Ah..
You're just passing comments taht really have no value..
Ok...
My bad..
I presumed you wanted to do more thatn just share prejudice...
> >> Also, our country is a lot bigger and more spread out than European
> >> countries...just getting the infrastructure in place for a truly
> >> effective mass transit system in some areas would be a staggering
> >> cost.
>
> >Particularly when it is NOT planned in from the get-go and instead is
> >IMPOSED after the fact..
>
> Okay, let's test your theory....you go build some really slick mass
> transit systems in the middle of Nebraska and we'll see if the density
> builds up around them.
>
???
Are you really THAT stupid ?
> >Nonetheless..
> > There is a NEED to implement better mass trasint fr the future,
because
> >the present system is so inefficient and expensive that it will soon
outgrow
> >the countires' ability to support it..
>
> You don't need to convince me of the fact that the infrastructure is
> slowly crumbling. However, what works in one area is not going to
> work in another...this is more of a local/regional issue than a
> national one. IMO, of course. YMMV.
The similarities are IDENTICAL across the board..
Population growth is a constant ACROSS the board.
Sprawl is a constant ACROSS the board..
There is enough there to mandate SOME standardasation across the board...
But it's a lot easier to let others worry about..
AS long as it doesn't interfere too much with you limited sphere...
Riiight ?
Spuddie
sybilline pokelocken with foraminous swallets, porrected wildly and
bellered:
>> So like the Field of Dreams, we should build it and they will come?
>> Build a mass transit system and let the city develop around it? That
>> might work (it does on Sim City anyway....) but it doesn't do much to
>> alleviate the problems already in existence in many (very spread-out)
>> cities, does it?
>>
>
>Nope, it doesn't..
>BUT the pronlem with sprawl, is taht a LOT of GOOD land is being paved..
>And once paved, that land will probably never be usable as arable land.
I take it you're not a friend of these guys then, eh?
http://www.icbl.hw.ac.uk/~cjs/pave/
>In this country, the prime land is being paved over...
> And it's a LIMITED resource...
I agree. But it's not all being paved over with roads...much of it is
being developed and paved over with mall after mall after mall. I say
let's give everyone a free computer and free internet access so they
can work at home and do all their shopping online...then the roads
would only need to be used for the UPS and FedEx trucks. *tongue
firmly in cheek*
>So no it does NOT solve your short-term problems..
> But it adresses LONG-term issues that NEED to be addresses for the ommon
>good..
Your vision of the future would include humongous cities built upwards
towards the sky and downwards into the earth and they'd be very
population-dense, I take it? Kind of like Tokyo or Shanghai? And
between these extremely crowded, polluted cities would be vast
expanses of wild unpaved greenness? Which of course, no real people
will actually be able to get to because there's no efficient way to
get there without paved highways. Or will the green spaces only be
reserved for the wealthy who can afford to fly in?
>> >Obviously your evaluation of ridership is NOT based on FACT.
>>
>> Of course not! I said it was based on observation, and that just a
>> passing comment from my husband who happens to be a busdriver...no, he
>> doesn't sit there with a clipboard and 'classify' everyone who steps
>> on his bus. And no, I don't sit around reading studies about bus
>> ridership in my spare time....cripes!
>Then maybe you shouln't pass uninformed comments about ridership...
Well exCUUUUUUSEEEEEE ME! I'll go and do a few weeks' worth of reading
and research so I can give a *valid* comment or two, would that make
you happy? Sheesh...I never *claimed* to be an expert, just another
citizen/user of the roadways and mass transit...so now ordinary
citizens aren't allowed to comment or put forth observations? Since
when?
>> You must be really desperate to pick a fight...I don't even *have* a
>> position! Just making some passing comments is all.
>>
>
>Ah..
> You're just passing comments taht really have no value..
> Ok...
That's pretty much right. I really don't expect anyone here to
*value* what I have to say...as I said, I'm just another
citizen...just making observations and passing comments about what I
personally have experienced....which *must* be a helluva lot more fun
than passing hot air.
>My bad..
> I presumed you wanted to do more thatn just share prejudice...
Oh no! Sharing prejudice is my favorite pastime!
>> Okay, let's test your theory....you go build some really slick mass
>> transit systems in the middle of Nebraska and we'll see if the density
>> builds up around them.
>???
Nebraska? Well, it's kind of southwest of here. I'm sure it must be
on the map....
>Are you really THAT stupid ?
Yes I am. Thank you for noticing.
>> You don't need to convince me of the fact that the infrastructure is
>> slowly crumbling. However, what works in one area is not going to
>> work in another...this is more of a local/regional issue than a
>> national one. IMO, of course. YMMV.
>The similarities are IDENTICAL across the board..
They are? So New York is built on land with the same geological base
as Billings, Montana and it would be just as easy to build a subway
there as in New York? How would you build a subway in Miami or Tampa,
FL...when it's essentially swampland? And you're saying that what
works in San Francisco will work equally well in New Orleans?
> Population growth is a constant ACROSS the board.
So you're saying that the population is growing as fast in North
Dakota as it is in, say, Arizona? I don't think so...in fact, the US
Census Bureau says that while the population has increased by 30% in
Arizona from 1990 to 1999, the population in North Dakota has actually
decreased by 1%. The population in Texas has gone up 18% and in
Connecticut has decreased 2%. How is that "constant across the board"
and how on earth could you think that what works in Fargo will work
equally well in Phoenix?? (BTW, these are US Census Bureau estimates,
not actual figures.)
I'm sure that population growth within states varies as well...for
example, you'd have a hard time convincing me that population growth
is the same on the Iron Range as it is in the greater metropolitan
Twin Cities area. Or do you know something I don't?
> Sprawl is a constant ACROSS the board..
I doubt that, too...
>There is enough there to mandate SOME standardasation across the board...
Which would require a Federal law of some sort, I suppose...which
would undoubtedly spawn a few lawsuits by various states and
localities questioning the constitutionality of said law.
(Disclaimer: I'm not an expert on the Constitution either....just so
you know. I may be wrong!)
>But it's a lot easier to let others worry about..
Too true. Those of youse with "all the answers" are much more
qualified to worry...I'm too stupid to be concerned with such
complicated matters. You said so yourself.
> AS long as it doesn't interfere too much with you limited sphere...
> Riiight ?
Riiiight! I usually walk to work so none of this really pertains to me
anyway.
Cheryl
~~~Some people are going to leave a mark on this world, while
others will leave a stain~~~
Iconoclast
I'd say, rather, that people who show no ability to control speed
not driving is an "oughta be". After all, speed control is not
rocket science.
CJSonnack <Ch...@Sonnack.com> wrote:
>Iconoclast...
>
>> The idea "not everyone can drive" is an interesting
one....until
>> you recall that its a democracy, and if some are more equal
than
>> others, it is mainly by virtue of their to throw tons of money
at
>> the political process.
>
>My step-son couldn't go on some rides at DisneyWorld because he
was
>too short. The idea that some people aren't *fit* to do certain
>things does not conflict with the principles of democracy.
>
>> And out of that will come th result that people will drive
where
>> they want.
>
>Probably, but USENET is full of wishes and 'oughta be's.
[shrug]
>
>
>--
>___ CJS __________ Chris(a)Sonnack{dot}com ___
http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___
>________________________________________________________________
__________
>___ If riding in a plane is flying, then riding in a boat is
swimming. ___
>___ To experience the element, GET OUT OF THE VEHICLE!
___
>
>
-----------------------------------------------------------
CJSonnack
> Except that slower drivers not driving is hardly an "oughta be".
Depends on who you ask.
> I'd say, rather, that people who show no ability to control speed
> not driving is an "oughta be". After all, speed control is not
> rocket science.
[bwg] I can control my speed really well. I always drive the speed
I intend to.
Iconoclast
"control" at all. Ever hear the phrase, "He drove relaxed, both
feet flat on the floor"? That is what some of those left-lane
cowboys are dong, and it isnt "speed control". In fact,the only
time they ever encounter any "control", they don't like it and
fly into a rage.
-----------------------------------------------------------