From: Brent Jonas on
On Jun 3, 9:00 am, Arif Khokar <akhokar1...(a)wvu.edu> wrote:
> Scott in SoCal wrote:
> > Keep your eye on the red SUV, who is passing another vehicle at a
> > reasonable rate:
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4TmOtsVObQ
>
> > And, of course, the tanker truck driver is a MFFY.
>
> I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but this is clearly a
> case where the SUV cut the tanker truck off by going (almost) directly
> to the left lane after merging onto the highway without checking for
> faster traffic behind him.
>
> But, come to think of it, this is the same rational that those who
> complain about people who tailgate them while passing "at a reasonable
> rate."  That is: "I have to pass RIGHT NOW, MF F the 'speeders' behind me."
>
> Verdict: The SUV is the MFFY driver, not the tanker truck.

I agree; plus the SUV driver did not merge onto the freeway safely.
The merge ramp is there for a reason.

I will *never ever* cut off a truck driver (or anybody, for that
matter); not worth the risk of getting rear-ended, should you suddenly
have to slam on your brakes for whatever reason.
From: Larry Harvilla on
Scott in SoCal wrote:
> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Larry Harvilla <larry(a)phatpage.org>
> said:
>
>> Arif Khokar wrote:
>>> Scott in SoCal wrote:
>>>
>>>> Keep your eye on the red SUV, who is passing another vehicle at a
>>>> reasonable rate:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4TmOtsVObQ
>>>>
>>>> And, of course, the tanker truck driver is a MFFY.
>>> I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but this is clearly a
>>> case where the SUV cut the tanker truck off by going (almost) directly
>>> to the left lane after merging onto the highway without checking for
>>> faster traffic behind him.
>> Sarcastic or downright stupid -- one of the two.
>
> Anyone who has been reading this group in the past couple of months
> will recognize the argument: it's one that has been put forward by the
> likes of Harry K, Daniel Rouse, and Ed White - and roundly criticized
> by everyone else (for obvious reasons).


Mmmkay, must be a r.a.d thing. I don't follow r.a.d except for the
messages that get crossposted to m.t.r.

--
Larry Harvilla
e-mail: larry AT phatpage DOT org
http://www.phatpage.org/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/larrysphatpage
From: Arif Khokar on
On 6/4/2010 11:27 AM, Arif Khokar wrote:
> On 6/4/2010 10:17 AM, Scott in SoCal wrote:

>> Anyone who has been reading this group in the past couple of months
>> will recognize the argument: it's one that has been put forward by the
>> likes of Harry K, Daniel Rouse, and Ed White - and roundly criticized
>> by everyone else (for obvious reasons).

> That would explain why Harry K hasn't responded yet even though he has
> posted in the pickup truck seat belt thread just this morning. I wonder
> if Daniel Rouse will ignore this thread as well ...

Yup, it's confirmed: both of them ignored this thread because they both
know they're 100% wrong on this issue regarding passing "at a reasonable
rate."
From: Daniel W. Rouse Jr. on

"Arif Khokar" <akhokar1234(a)wvu.edu> wrote in message
news:3klOn.102913$O81.66479(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
> On 6/4/2010 11:27 AM, Arif Khokar wrote:
>> On 6/4/2010 10:17 AM, Scott in SoCal wrote:
>
>>> Anyone who has been reading this group in the past couple of months
>>> will recognize the argument: it's one that has been put forward by the
>>> likes of Harry K, Daniel Rouse, and Ed White - and roundly criticized
>>> by everyone else (for obvious reasons).
>
>> That would explain why Harry K hasn't responded yet even though he has
>> posted in the pickup truck seat belt thread just this morning. I wonder
>> if Daniel Rouse will ignore this thread as well ...
>
> Yup, it's confirmed: both of them ignored this thread because they both
> know they're 100% wrong on this issue regarding passing "at a reasonable
> rate."

When replying to Usenet threads, I get to them as I see fit, especially
since I can download messages to read offline using a newsreader and then I
can reply later, maybe even days later. Too bad you don't get to decide the
correct time one is supposed to respond.

Since I've replied, it is 100% false that I "ignored" the thread.

However, the issue in this thread is actually about completing a merge, so
it's not just a clear case of whether a vehicle in the left lane is passing
traffic in other thru traffic lanes. In the case of passing traffic in other
thru traffic lanes there is *always* a reasonable rate of passing vs. a
clearly obvious MFFY rate of passing.

From: Arif Khokar on
On 6/5/2010 2:12 AM, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:

>> Yup, it's confirmed: both of them ignored this thread because they
>> both know they're 100% wrong on this issue regarding passing "at a
>> reasonable rate."

> When replying to Usenet threads, I get to them as I see fit, especially
> since I can download messages to read offline using a newsreader and
> then I can reply later, maybe even days later. Too bad you don't get to
> decide the correct time one is supposed to respond.
>
> Since I've replied, it is 100% false that I "ignored" the thread.

At the time I posted the message, my statement was essentially true.

> However, the issue in this thread is actually about completing a merge,
> so it's not just a clear case of whether a vehicle in the left lane is
> passing traffic in other thru traffic lanes.

It was passing the truck in the right lane. Both the truck and SUV
passing it are now considered through traffic since they're occupying
both lanes of the highway.

> In the case of passing traffic in other thru traffic lanes there is
> *always* a reasonable rate of passing vs. a clearly obvious MFFY rate
> of passing.

The SUV looks like he's going 3 to 5 mph faster than the truck in the
video. So, IYO, is that a reasonable rate of passing? Why or why not?