"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article et, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"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.

I'd call it an accurate description, not an interpretation.


Me too.


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).

Hmmm...

She's going with the flow of traffic, *above* the posted speed limit, but
she
should slow down and change lanes so that someone who wants to go even
faster
can get by?


Thank you. Doesn't make much sense to me, either.


She's not being "courteous" enough to do the above, so that somehow
validates
the dangerous actions of another driver (following too closely, trying to
pass
on the shoulder)?

She's only blocking those who want to speed
faster than she wants to speed.

Exactly.

Well, there you have it.


Haw...as you would say!


However, as you well know, she doesn't have a mandate, or a
right, to self-enforce how fast others drive.

Nor do *they* (or Kim) have a right to speed.


Correct as correct can be.


Instead, she has the same
obligations as other drivers, including an obligation to move to the
right
to allow others to pass.

Where is it in the motor vehicle code that a driver on a multilane divided
highway has to change lanes and slow down to allow a speeder to pass in a
non-emergency situation?


They have *some* (one that I know of) of those highways down here. The only
one I know of is well north of the DFW metroplex, up above Lewisville,
even...almost to the OK border.


If others are driving too fast while doing so, that
is law enforcement's business - not the business of a self-styled road
vigilante.

It's everyone's business.


Yep.


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.

The behaviors described by Kim go far beyond driving fast. They are
obviously
childish - and often dangerous. Following too closely is simply unsafe.


Uh, *especially* at near 70-75 and above mph!!!!!!!!!!!!


If you think childish impulses are easily modified by simple rewards, you
obviously haven't spent much time with impulsive children.

And you haven't established
that.

It's self-evident.


Oh, I'm here to tell you that strategy works on children, groups, etc.


Adults can make decisions based on some level of knowledge,
experience, and review of the situation, not impulse.

Of course!

But the behaviors Kim describes are not those of a responsible adult.

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.

The driver *feels*?

So the driver's *feelings* supersede the judgement of the traffic
engineers and
lawmakers who determine the posted speed limits?

I'd like to see that argument defended in court!

My daily commute to work is often made longer by school buses and school
zones.
It's gotten so I know exactly where the zones, the children, and the bus
stops
are. Is it adult behavior for me to go faster than 15 in a school zone, or
zoom
past a bus with its red lights flashing, because I *feel* I can do so
safely?


The adult thing to do is either get up and leave earlier, or leave after the
school zones are relinquished to normal traffic.


Or how about the ham who *feels* he "needs" 10 kW output? Suppose said ham
can
safely assemble and operate a 10 kW transmitter that meets all of the FCC
requirements for spurious emissions and RF exposure. Is it therefre OK for
him
to do so because he *feels* it's OK?

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).

You know you can do it on German autobahns. But we're not in Germany. You
want
to drive faster, go to Germany.

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).

Sure. That's an emergency situation. But Kim says it's an every-day thing.
Hardly an emergency. And if there's only one person in the car....

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.

The only valid counterexample you give is the emergency case.

I don't exactly agree with Kim's behavior either, because a person who is
childishly impulsive enough to do what she describes may do other, even
more
dangerous things. And I don't want Kim (or me) to be a victim of someone
else's
childish impulses.

73 de Jim, N2EY


'Zactly.

Kim W5TIT