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: Brent on 8 Jun 2010 00:27 On 2010-06-08, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. <dwrousejr(a)nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote: > 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. So what? Let's say I take the lane with my bicycle because there's another bicyclist in front of me and I want to pass him. I don't bother waiting for you to go by and I'm doing 3mph faster than the bicyclist I'm passing. (that's a reasonable rate for a bicycle). So, what? You brake and wait and do 18mph in a 40mph zone. > 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. Or wait for a few seconds before starting the pass. That's how it's done in civilized countries where people are less control freakish. > 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. A new twist on control freakism hiding behind the vehicle code. The speed limit is 55mph on the interstate I typically drive, your 70mph is not in any way morally superior than the other guy's 90mph. Actually that's true without a speed limit as well. You're just showing how the government through its laws is decivilizing. You see the speed limit as way to legitimately behave in an inappropiate way. > 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. Because your speed is right one and other speeds are wrong. I knew that already. >>> 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. He doesn't have to speed up. He can wait before beginning the pass. I already linked the video showing me waiting for someone to pass. > > [snip...] Of course. You don't want to discuss the fact that you are demonstrating the exact same behavior as those who don't like bicyclists on the road. You're a "non-adjuster". It's just too much trouble for you to adjust, you want everyone else to adjust to you.
From: Daniel W. Rouse Jr. on 8 Jun 2010 00:54 "Brent" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hukgsa$dke$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > On 2010-06-08, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. <dwrousejr(a)nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote: > >> 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. > > So what? Let's say I take the lane with my bicycle because there's > another bicyclist in front of me and I want to pass him. I don't bother > waiting for you to go by and I'm doing 3mph faster than the bicyclist > I'm passing. (that's a reasonable rate for a bicycle). So, what? You > brake and wait and do 18mph in a 40mph zone. > Still not the same thing. Reasonable speed passing is not the same as sloth passing. What you describe is sloth passing, and in passing the slower bike but holding up thru vehicular traffic you would be a MFFY on a bike. >> 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. > > Or wait for a few seconds before starting the pass. That's how it's done > in civilized countries where people are less control freakish. > Except if the reasonable speed passer is already in the left lane there is no need to delay the pass. >> 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. > > A new twist on control freakism hiding behind the vehicle code. The > speed limit is 55mph on the interstate I typically drive, your 70mph is > not in any way morally superior than the other guy's 90mph. Actually > that's true without a speed limit as well. You're just showing how the > government through its laws is decivilizing. You see the speed limit as > way to legitimately behave in an inappropiate way. > That 70mph is still the upper bound of the flow of traffic. 90mph is therefore too fast for traffic conditions. >> 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. > > Because your speed is right one and other speeds are wrong. I knew that > already. > Who said I was talking about just me? That's valid in general and goes for a reasonable speed passer in front of me--if I catch up to them and they are passing, it is my problem if I actually want to go faster and I have an obligation to brake as I approach them instead of running up on them and tailgating! >>>> 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. > > He doesn't have to speed up. He can wait before beginning the pass. I > already linked the video showing me waiting for someone to pass. > Okay. >> >> [snip...] > > Of course. You don't want to discuss the fact that you are demonstrating > the exact same behavior as those who don't like bicyclists on the road. > You're a "non-adjuster". It's just too much trouble for you to adjust, > you want everyone else to adjust to you. > See above for how your bicycle scenario, especially if it would cause thru traffic to have to cross over a center divider line in order to pass a bicyclist, is MFFY on a bike.
From: Arif Khokar on 8 Jun 2010 01:20 On 6/8/2010 12:54 AM, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote: > > "Brent" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:hukgsa$dke$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> A new twist on control freakism hiding behind the vehicle code. The >> speed limit is 55mph on the interstate I typically drive, your 70mph is >> not in any way morally superior than the other guy's 90mph. Actually >> that's true without a speed limit as well. You're just showing how the >> government through its laws is decivilizing. You see the speed limit as >> way to legitimately behave in an inappropiate way. > That 70mph is still the upper bound of the flow of traffic. That's only if the speed limit is set correctly. If the pace speed ranges from 70 to 80 mph on that particular highway, then the 70 mph speed limit in no way represents the upper bound of the speed of traffic. A correctly set speed limit would be within 5 to 7 mph of the upper bound speed (for all practical purposes). It's not any different than say having a pace speed of 30 to 40 mph on a road with a posted limit of 35 mph and then the government arbitrarily reducing the speed limit to 20 mph. In that case, one surely could not argue that a cyclist going 20 mph catching up to another cyclist going 15 mph should pull out to pass making faster traffic behind slow down is in any way reasonable or not MFFY. >> Of course. You don't want to discuss the fact that you are demonstrating >> the exact same behavior as those who don't like bicyclists on the road. >> You're a "non-adjuster". It's just too much trouble for you to adjust, >> you want everyone else to adjust to you. > See above for how your bicycle scenario, especially if it would cause > thru traffic to have to cross over a center divider line in order to > pass a bicyclist, is MFFY on a bike. Well then, if you want to be consistent, then you should wait till the cyclist completes his pass, since he is passing at a "reasonable" rate (3 to 5 mph).
From: Larry G on 8 Jun 2010 06:29 On Jun 7, 11:47 pm, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr." <dwrous...(a)nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote: > "Brent" <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:huj3kl$qvt$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > > > > On 2010-06-07, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. <dwrous...(a)nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote: > > >> "Brent" <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(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...] While I would agree about the 90mph car, most folks who "block" in the left lane don't do it once in a blue moon in the case of a 90mph car - they have a pattern of doing it. You can watch them in traffic and that often is something they will do repeatedly no matter the speed of the car behind them. If I am passing and I see someone in my rear view coming at great speed - I get out of the way if I can. I don't purposely maintain my speed because I think they are going way too fast. Again - this boils down to what your pattern is - not just one incident and most of the folks I've seen blocking - do it not just once. Further - even after some of them complete their pass, the will not move right until traffic starts to pass them on the right and sometimes they will speed up to prevent people from passing them on the right and then slow back down when they pull even with the next car. There may be one or two truly clueless folks out there but most of them know exactly what they are doing and it's really a form of aggressive driving - the very opposite of cooperative driving, i.e. sharing the road, not causing bottlenecks, passing in a timely manner, and moving right after their pass.
From: Jim Yanik on 8 Jun 2010 08:30
Arif Khokar <akhokar1234(a)wvu.edu> wrote in news:l5jPn.354280$KH2.346729(a)unlimited.newshosting.com: > 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. > > a "reasonable speed passer" is one who doesn't make other passers wait or slow down. STKR,KRETP. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at localnet dot com |