"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
nk.net...
"N2EY" wrote:
Remember the scenario Kim describes:
- multilane divided highway
- all vehicles at or above the posted speed limit.
- vehicle comes up behind her, flashes brights,
follows too closely, tries to get around on the
*inside* shoulder. IOW, unsafe, aggressive
driving actions intended to intimidate Kim.
(as if!!)
That's your (and/or perhaps Kim's) interpretation of the scenario.
Others
may interpret it as Kim being an inattentive driver that is not acting
courteously to others by driving to the right, causing others to take
extraordinary steps to get her attention back on the road and courteous
driving (with extraordinary steps being necessary to get someone to drive
courteously only adding to the fustration of other drivers).
Dwight, I've got a couple of questions for you, but let me first say: a) I
am already driving above the posted speed (by at least 10 and often 15 mph).
So, I am not going at posted or under posted speed; b) I am driving "as
courteously" or more than anyone else...certainly safer--I am leaving plenty
of distance between myself and the traffic ahead, if there is any and, keep
in mind, the traffic ahead is generally going the same speed I am--it is the
oddballs that come up from behind and want everyone to start moving over for
them.
OK, question 1:
Why should it be *me* who has to yield to someone else to be courteous to
them, when it is *them* acting unsafe, speeding faster than anyone else, and
often copping quite a conscious attitude of beign an idiot--the rest of us
are just driving along.
She's only blocking those who want to speed
faster than she wants to speed.
Exactly. However, as you well know, she doesn't have a mandate, or a
right, to self-enforce how fast others drive. Instead, she has the same
obligations as other drivers, including an obligation to move to the right
to allow others to pass. If others are driving too fast while doing so,
that
is law enforcement's business - not the business of a self-styled road
vigilante.
OK. So I don't have that mandate. Neither does the person behind me.
Since I am "in line" first, they should recalculate when they get on the
road if my being there (and others) is going to be such an aggravation for
them.
I don't consider myself a self-styled vigilante. I consider myself as a
driver like anyone else on the road...except I don't act like an idiot
around others (if I speed--and I do--I make darned sure that I keep a safe
distance from others). The jerk (yeah, jerk) behind me obviously thinks
they are more important than anyone else--I ignore them.
But the behavior/reward model I gave is valid.
For both children and alleged adults.
I disagree. For it to be valid, you would have to establish there is
nothing more than childhood impulse behind the decision drive fast -
impulse
that can be easily modified by simple rewards. And you haven't established
that. Adults can make decisions based on some level of knowledge,
experience, and review of the situation, not impulse. In the case of fast
drivers, perhaps the driver feels, based on a consideration of his/her
skills and experience, that he/she can drive safely at faster speeds. For
example, I've driven many thousands of miles on German autobahns, and know
full well I can drive safely at speeds faster than 55-65 mph (therefore
only
the laws and conditions attenuate my driving speeds). Perhaps the person
has
a legitimate reason for driving faster. For example, the driver may be
taking someone to the hospital (and Kim is blocking his way). I could go
on,
but these examples alone should make it clear that not all are acting
solely
on impulse that can be easily modified by simple rewards.
Dwight Stewart (W5NET)
http://www.qsl.net/w5net/
Kim W5TIT