"Kim" wrote in message ...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Kim"
writes:

Sorry for the delay - thought I'd answered this, Kim

It's fine for them to go 20 mph above the speed limit. It's fine if they
want to go 30-40 mph above the speed limit. But, they won't find me
moving
out of their way; they'll have to go around because I am not moving into
a
lane where I have to slow down, or even get "stuck" there for a while, if
there happens to be more than one vehicle that wants to go past.

Ah, I see. The right lane is going 60-65, the left lane (with you in it by
yourself) is going 70-75, and you're not going to lose a few seconds in
order
to accomodate someone who wants to go 80-85.


It's not the matter of being kind and courteous and moving over so someone
who's acting like an idiot can go by. It's the principle of the matter that
*because* of the way they are being self-important, it's going to be *them*
that does the moving around. I.E., I see them in kind of like the "bully"
role of a little kid. Well, I'm not giving in to the bully.

After some thought, it occurred to me to restate your posstion in
slightly different terms. How about this:

People tend to do what works for them. If a certain behavior produces
a desired result, they will tend to repeat and expand that behavior if
they want the result another time. This is a basic concept in child
rearing - you reward the behaviors you want and do not reward the
behaviors you don't want. And "reward" can take many forms - arguing
with a child from 7:30 to 7:35 about the fact that their bedtime is
7:30 is "rewarding" the arguing behavior because it results in a 7:35
bedtime.

And the effects go beyond the people directly involved. If another
child sees that arguing with a parent "works", then they're much more
likely to try arguing or some variation of it somewhere down the line.
Maybe the argument won't be about bedtime but the same tactics will be
used.

This doesn't mean the child has consciously figured all that out and
is working from a preconceived plan. It just means that the effects
are the same, and a parent has to take a different approach that
doesn't effectively reward the unwanted behavior. Good parents know
all this - again, sometimes not consciously.

Another important concept is to be consistent. The child needs to
learn not only that arguing over bedtime at bedtime doesn't work but
that it *never* works.

So in the case of the driver who "behaves like an idiot", Kim is being
very careful and consistent to *not* reward the "idiot" behavior by
pulling over and letting the person go by. Because if such behavior
works, we'll see more and more of it. Not just from the current batch
of idiots but from presently non-idiot drivers who see that it works
and try it themselves.

OTOH, if "behaving like an idiot" on the road is not rewarded, the
driver may try something else (like courtesy, or getting on the road a
few minutes earlier).

Does all this agree with your thinking, Kim?

73 de Jim, N2EY