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: Harry K on 7 Jun 2010 00:15 On Jun 6, 7:26 am, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Harry K <turnkey4...(a)hotmail.com> > said: > > >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. > > So you watched that video, and yet you still claim that the SUV driver > is in the right and the tanker truck driver is the MFFY? > > There's literally no hope for you. > -- > The MFFY Litmus Test: > If your maneuver forces another driver who has the right-of-way > to alter course or speed, what you did was probably MFFY. No, I didnt' watch it due to being on dial-up. From the discussion, the SUV driver is clearly in the wrong. Not because of his passing but due to the lane changes. He could even be in the wrong for sloth passing but that isn't clear in the discussion. Harry K
From: gpsman on 7 Jun 2010 13:04 On Jun 7, 10:22 am, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > In actual fact, the lane is NOT clear when they initiate their pass; Slow day at the ol' engineering factory...? > there is faster traffic already in the lane which catches up to them > before they complete their pass. Oh. So they should alter their course and/or speed and relinquish their ROW...? You're a riot. > The MFFY Litmus Test: > If your maneuver forces another driver who has the right-of-way > to alter course or speed, what you did was probably MFFY. A litmus test for MFFY suggests the obvious. ----- - gpsman
From: kilton9 on 7 Jun 2010 18:07 On Jun 7, 1:04 pm, gpsman <gps...(a)driversmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 7, 10:22 am, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > there is faster traffic already in the lane which catches up to them > > before they complete their pass. > > Oh. So they should alter their course and/or speed and relinquish > their ROW...? That's right butterbean. Instead of forcing the driver who was already in the left lane to alter their course and/or speed, the lane changer should do it himself. Common courtesy really. > You're a riot. Aren't you the rocket surgeon who went to the trouble of posting a Youtube video of himself using a 100+ foot following distance in bumper-to-bumper highway traffic for no reason? Who's the riot? :-)
From: Daniel W. Rouse Jr. on 7 Jun 2010 23:47 "Brent" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:huj3kl$qvt$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > On 2010-06-07, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. <dwrousejr(a)nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote: >> >> "Brent" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > >>>> Wrong, simply wrong, absolutely wrong. Anyone who "cuts over" to pass >>>> is >>>> also an MFFY, regardless of what speed the choose to pass the other >>>> vehicles. >>> >>> "reasonable rate" passers do it day in and day out and blame the person >>> behind them. >>> >>>> Reasonable rate passers do not "cut over". >>> >>> Bullshit. I see them cut over such that I or others have to brake, >>> sometimes brake hard to avoid hitting them. > >> If they have to brake hard, then the other driver cut them off. That is >> not >> what I am referring to, and you know that. > > So there is some "reasonable braking" you can impose on other drivers > for your own impatience? > >>>> They merge over when the lane is >>>> clear and start their pass. The MFFY speeder may be further back but >>>> still >>>> eventually catches up to the reasonable speed passer due to a >>>> significantly >>>> higher rate of speed (e.g., 15+ mph speed differential). Surely you do >>>> not >>>> suggest the reasonable speed passer should not merge left at all just >>>> because another vehicle may catch up to them several seconds after they >>>> completed their lane change and started passing? That's too bad for the >>>> MFFY >>>> speeder, they'll just have to use the brakes when they do catch up to >>>> the >>>> reasonable speed passer! > >>> So you spend the first part of the post saying I'm wrong about >>> "reasonable rate" passers cutting over and forcing others to brake and >>> then immediately above you defend the practice. The person already >>> driving in the left lane doing 15mph faster than the "reasonable rate" >>> passer is already visible in the "reasonable rate" passers's mirrors. >>> You defend the "RR" passer moving over and forcing another driver to >>> brake. On top of that you call the other guy a MFFY? My god what stupid, >>> rude arrogance. Here, watch this video and see how to properly behave: >>> http://www.blip.tv/file/719780/ > >> If the MFFY speeder is 1000 feet away, 1500 feet away, 2000 feet away, >> there >> is NO reason for the reasonable rate passer not to merge and complete >> their >> pass. > > Yes, COMPLETE the pass BEFORE the other driver reaches them. That means > having returned to the lane to the right. > And if not, so what? As soon as the passing is done, one can move to a lane to the right, but at the same time, if they traffic catches up before the passing is completed it is *they* who are too fast for traffic conditions. Example: Left lane: reasonable speed passer at 70mph. Center lane: slower traffic at 60mph to 65mph. Right lane: big rig in the lead with slower traffic behind it, 55mph traffic flow. Now add a MFFY speeder in the left lane and 15 about seconds behind that is doing 90. Reasonable speed passer is expected to punch it and pass before MFFY speeder catches up? NO--MFFY speeder is too fast for traffic conditions, plain and simple. The reasonable speed passer has no obligation, none whatsoever, to speed up just because of the MFFY speeder. As long as they are passing, they are legal, and their passing speed de-facto defines the upper bound speed of traffic flow. Nothing in the vehicle code says they must pass as fast as possible, nothing in the vehicle code says they must merge right for faster traffic even if they are passing. That goes for whether 70 mph is the posted speed limit, or the speed limit is lower (in which case the 70mph reasonable speed passer is actually over the speed limit). Too bad for the MFFY speeder, they'll have to use the brakes. >> Yes, the MFFY may catch up to them, but the lane being empty for up to >> the point the MFFY speeder catches up to them is not the problem of the >> reasonable rate passer. I specifically said open lane, not someone in the >> mirrors and gaining. > > So you endorse forcing other drivers to brake because you have to pass > NOW and at your chosen speed instead of minimizing your impact on > others. We aren't talking where someone is out of visual range and comes > up at 120+mph. We're talking everyday driving so it damn well is someone > in the mirrors and visibly gaining before the move is made. > No, I am endorsing that one does not have to speed up when they are passing just because someone is catching up to them. [snip...]
From: Arif Khokar on 7 Jun 2010 23:49
On 6/7/2010 11:35 PM, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote: > "Scott in SoCal" <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:lsvp069sj6v6grlqhep1tcv01mq9v7dol1(a)4ax.com... >> Example: you are going 70 MPH in the left lane. If I gun it up to 80, >> merge in front of you, complete my pass, and return to the right lane, >> all without affecting you, that is not MFFY. > You gun it up to 80 and merge in front of me? Already that's MFFY > because you're accelerating aggressively, doesn't matter if it doesn't > affect me. It does matter. Part of the definition of MFFY is that the action(s) have to affect someone else. Since Scott's example doesn't affect you, then it's not MFFY since it didn't require you to slow down at all. In fact, it's as if he isn't there since you could continue passing without incident. >> In actual fact, the lane is NOT clear when they initiate their pass; >> there is faster traffic already in the lane which catches up to them >> before they complete their pass. This is why they get tailgated and/or >> lights flashed at them. > Sorry, that's just too bad. If thru traffic isn't outright being cut off > but they do end up catching up to the reasonable speed passer before > they completed their pass--again, too bad for the MFFY speeder, they'll > just have to use the brakes. And that, my intellectually dishonest friend, is most definitely MFFY. |