Video: Passing at a Reasonable Rate
in [Drive]
|
Prev: Three more questions added to WWTL Trivia
Next: These are the laws that will protect the Cyclists under the Revolution
From: bugo on 5 Jun 2010 08:38 "Arif Khokar" <akhokar1234(a)wvu.edu> wrote in message news:NmnOn.267759$Dd3.134443(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > 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? It isn't reasonable if you have to cut somebody off to make the pass. The douchebag in the SUV should have waited for the truck to pass before passing. As I said, this kind of thing happens to me almost daily.
From: Larry G on 5 Jun 2010 10:40 On Jun 4, 8:00 pm, richard <mem...(a)newsguy.com> wrote: > On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 08:26:24 -0700, 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. > > Once again, reading the wrong situation. > > What we have here is a person in car #1, the red one, failing to observe > the approaching truck in the left lane. > > Car #1 is also tailgating the truck ahead of him on the ramp and into the > moving lanes. > > I'd say that car #1 is a bit of a sloth as he should be well aware of the > tanker behind him right on his bumper. At highway speeds, you don't want to > be trying to slow down a tanker too fast as the sloshing around could push > you ahead even more. > > I agree car #1 was a bit fool hardy for his maneuver. As he should have > waited and been patient for the tanker to go by. > if the tanker truck had nailed the car - who would have been charged?
From: H.B. Elkins on 5 Jun 2010 21:31 On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 18:16:10 -0500, Rich Piehl wrote: >Ice Road Truckers last year - the guy was driving a vacuum truck. Used >to pump sewage water out of holding tanks for the off shore oil sites >and haul it back to solid ground for treatment. Apparently it had no >baffles as when he drove you could see it sloshing on camera. 7-8000 >gallons of semi frozen poo and pee. In other words, he was carrying a load of viatology. -- To reply by e-mail, remove the "restrictor plate"
From: Larry Harvilla on 6 Jun 2010 04:47 H.B. Elkins wrote: > On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 18:16:10 -0500, Rich Piehl wrote: > >> Ice Road Truckers last year - the guy was driving a vacuum truck. Used >> to pump sewage water out of holding tanks for the off shore oil sites >> and haul it back to solid ground for treatment. Apparently it had no >> baffles as when he drove you could see it sloshing on camera. 7-8000 >> gallons of semi frozen poo and pee. > > In other words, he was carrying a load of viatology. Actually, H.B., isn't viatology steaming rather than semi-frozen? ;-) -- Larry Harvilla e-mail: larry AT phatpage DOT org http://www.phatpage.org/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/larrysphatpage
From: Harry K on 6 Jun 2010 09:58
On Jun 4, 8:27 am, Arif Khokar <akhokar1...(a)wvu.edu> 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 ... I at least ignore it because it has been talked to death over the years and there is no way to convince the MFFY who is tailgating that he is in the wrong. Harry K |