Kim W5TIT the texas twit wrote:


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.

This is an "every morning" thing. If they want to get to where they are
going quicker, then they need to adjust their scheduling, not make others on
the road cater to their needs. I would not think of being obnoxious because
I have to get somewhere quicker than anyone else--I would make the decision
to get on the road earlier.

So why do you go 20 mph over the speed limit as you admit to? Why don't
you get on the road earlier so you can drive within the speed limit to
get where you need to on time?
I suppose if someone is going 10 mph over the limit, you expect them to
get out of your way so you can do 20 mph over, right?

In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

You must be getting old or something, Larry. You gave up much too quickly.
It was surely a mistake when she first wrote it, but a real surprise when
she actually wrote it again without catching the mistake.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Dwight:

Yes, she did make a mistake, but I recognized it as such, and instead of
beating up on her, I made an attempt to help her out. I now find it necessary
to go a step farther, and say that since she did make a simple (and common)
grammatical error, that I apologize to Kim for the inference that she would
have found the death of your brother to be "hilarious." Of course, had she
not used that term in the first place, the confusion never would have
occurred. Perhaps she will be more careful in the future.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes:

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

Yawn! Ok, apparently you need some help
here. I *think* that what you meant to say
goes something like this: "It's a pretty near
given that neither I, nor many others in
this newsgroup, would find anything like the
death of someone else "hilarious."" (snip)


You must be getting old or something, Larry. You gave up much too
quickly.
It was surely a mistake when she first wrote it, but a real surprise
when
she actually wrote it again without catching the mistake.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/


I meant to add that I'll check with our grammar department today...

Kim W5TIT



ACK!!! Man, I am still stunned over this one--I *must* be getting old. The
grammar department indeed reminded me of the old "either/neither"
"neither/nor" argument to be used in deciding upon correct grammar! So,
yes, Larry was correct! Wow, what a hoot! Larry being correct . However,
it was stated that, in a casual conversation, inference is
98% of the communication. Deductive reasoning would lend itself to knowing
what was intended to be said (sorry, Jim). I did remind them that I do not
consider this venue as much "casual" as I do a debate environment. So, they
said in a debate I'd lose points. Consider the points lost.

Anyway, yep, the sentence should have been as Larry stated in the above
reposted, reposted, reposted(?) post. All I can say is I am proud to have
given Larry the opportunity to be correct *and* intellectual, for
once... again. What a hoot, eh? Oh wait, upon review, could
it look to JJ like I am backpedaling? Hmmm.....nope, don't think so...

Now, back to cooking a fine, fine cook-ahead Thanksgiving dinner that
neither I nor anyone could deny being delightfully delicious! ;)

Kim W5TIT

Well, how about THAT? Kim, in her own way, actually admitting that she
was wrong about something! Gee, if only this would become a trend…

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , "Kim"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
. com...
"Kim" wrote in message
...

The far left--the "fast" lane as it is called. Funny thing is, if
you
mention to people at the office or wherever, that it doesn't mean the
"break
the speed limit lane," you ought to hear the validations for people
doing
just that.

But you're already speeding, Kim. And not by an amount that can be
explained by the usual inaccuraccies and imperfections of
speedometers.

Yet your getting ticked off because someone wants to go even faster.


Nope. Not at all. I am ticked because they think I should move for
them.

Why shouldn't you move?

If it's OK for you to go 15 mph above the limit, why isn't it OK for
them to go 20 mph above the limit? By refusing to move, you're
enforcing your own personal judgement on what the speed limit should
be.


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.

This is an "every morning" thing. If they want to get to where they are
going quicker, then they need to adjust their scheduling, not make others on
the road cater to their needs. I would not think of being obnoxious because
I have to get somewhere quicker than anyone else--I would make the decision
to get on the road earlier.

Sure.

Then why not apply that philosophy to yourself and get on the road early enough
that the right lane gets you there on time?

Suppose you're sailing along on your 60 mph 4-lane-divided (2 lanes
each way) road and you come across two (non police) cars side-by-side
going exactly the speed limit.

What would you do? Would their behavior bother you?

Yes, their behavior would bother me--*but* they're the cops...

No, they're not!

I wrote: " two (non police) cars". Sorry if that wasn't clear!

What I meant was two ordinary drivers in ordinary vehicles - not police or
officials of any kind. Just two folks who decided to go the posted speed limit
and no faster.

What would you do?

and they have
that latitude. What would I do? I'd follow along, in the left hand lane.
The fun part would be when someone angrily pulls out to the right and would
be jumping up alongside to go around before they'd notice that they were
acting like that with cops right there. GRIN

Except they're not cops.

I am already going faster than the posted speed is my point. Why should
someone expect me to move if I am already going faster than I should be?

Because you're preventing them from going as fast as *they* want, even
though you're going as fast as *you* want.

Then they should have gotten out earlier than me.

Why should *they* move to accomodate *you*? *You* won't accomodate them!

It's the same principle
as someone who's standing in the "fast" lane (misnomer most of the
time--GRIN) at the grocery store and I am ahead of them with 10 items and
they only have one or two. If they're prone to it, they'll tap their foot;
sigh real loud, etc. Practically fall over trying to get me to notice that
they only have "just this little bit." And, how dare I *not* yield to them
and let them go ahead...and the next with one or two...and the next, etc.

Must be another regional thing - I've never encountered that around here.

Hey, next time, get there before me.

Different situation and principle.

Why does anyone *need* to speed in a nonemergency situation? How much
time does going 70-75 save vs. 60 on that same road?

Actually, none...and I learned that in Driver's Education in High School.
It was proven out a few times, too. I don't know if I am really speeding
because of having to get somewhere quicker--in fact in the mornings that
would be probably not. I leave 45 min. ahead of time most of the time, to
get to a 20-25 min. destination. I leave early enough to account for
traffic also. And, I am very fortunate to have a job that doesn't make me
punch the timeclock.

But you still speed.

In my case, my 70-75 mph (more near 70 most of the time) is probably more
due to the fact that, that is where my foot lands on the gas pedal.

?? "Where your foot lands"?

Two words: Cruise control.

And, it
is the predominant flow of traffic...70-75, with the exception of those
obnoxious folks we're discussing here.

In both lanes?

Well, myself included, one does not think of these things (tickets)
happening when one is breaking the speed limit.

I think about 'em all the time. Not just the fine but the points.

I should probably count my blessings here, because this will jinx me. I've
been stopped three times in my driving "career." Little enough that I still
don't "know the routine" when I do get stopped. Only once I've been
ticketed

I wonder why....;-)

and that was for taking a turn onto a street that doesn't allow
those turns at the time of morning I was doing it.

About 20 years ago, on a cold rainy Sunday night, I made a wrong turn onto a
one way street in Philly. No "One Way" sign at the intersection, no "No Right
Turn", just a stop sign. No cars on the street either.

Of course it didn't take long after the turn to realize something wasn't right,
so I did a quick three-point turn. But it wasn't quick enough to avoid the
notice of two of Philadelphia's finest, who turned on the lights and pulled me
over.

By the time he got to my car I had the license, registration and insurance card
out, both hands on the wheel, and the window down so he could talk to me.

He took my papers and proceeded to run them through the computer in his patrol
car.

Meanwhile, the young lady who was with me started giving me the third degree as
to how I was going to handle the cop, how it wasn't my fault, how I should "be
a man" and "stand up to him" and "talk my way out of it". I held up one hand
and said "Be quiet. I'm the driver, it's my car and my license, and I don't
argue with the police over something as minor as a ticket. That's what traffic
court is for."

Officer came back, asked if I knew why he stopped me. I said "I was going the
wrong way on a one-way street because there's no sign at the intersection with
Pine Street. I turned around as soon as I realized it was a one-way street, but
you were right to stop me and I can understand if you decide to give me a
ticket."

Officer handed me back my papers and said: "No ticket for you, your papers are
all in order. We know all about the sign. Just be careful."

The young lady kept quiet, which was quite a miracle.

IOW, he was just waiting for somebody to give him a hard time.

Exactly, but if I happened upon someone who's already breaking the speek
limit, I am not going to act like an idiot behind them--expecting them
to
get out of my way.

What if they're going the speed limit?

Why is it OK for you to go 15 over but not OK for someone else to go
20 over?

If they are going the speed limit where I am at (in the left lane), I'd
still calmly make the move to the right lane and go around them--when it was
safe to--and wouldn't act like an idiot to them.

What if there was another car on the right and you couldn't go around?

It is not any more "right"
for me to speed than the next person--it's just that they'd better decide to
go around, because I will not be moving for them just because they are going
to act like an idiot. I will move if I decide to...and I usually don't.
But it's just as OK for them to be speeding as me...I don't care. You seem
to be stuck on the idea that I think they are wrong to speed faster than I
speed.

Nope.

I'm stuck on the idea that you want to control the speed on the road.

No. We're all just as wrong as each other for speeding, no matter
how fast. But, I don't like their "I gotta get there faster than you gotta
get there" attitude.

But that's *your* attitude, too. Otherwise you'd be in the right lane.

And, since I am the one in the lead at that
point--well, then, my attitude is the one that's important GRIN.

And, while my behavior is not "forgiveable," I am no where
as nasty as these folks are being.

Isn't that an entirely subjective judgement?

Yep. And it's mine...(grin)

HAW!

I do believe some of all this is regional, however.

And I've done a few tricks myself....

Way back in the late '80s, I had reason to go back and forth between
Philly and Washington, DC about every other weekend. I noticed that
the aggressiveness of drivers increased in direct proportion to
proximity to the nation's capital.

The worst part of the run was the BWP (Baltimore Washington Parkway),
a no-trucks 4 lane road with trees on both sides, and also between the
northbound and southbound lanes. Lots of traffic on a Friday night,
and as one approached The District the cars got more expensive and the
drivers more aggressive.


Heh, heh...funny you should mention that.

It happened way too many times.


Back then the limit was 55 and traffic tended to stay below about 59
because enforcement was pretty good, and there were lots of places for
the troopers to hide in the trees, around curves, etc. The troopers
would not go after anyone below about 62 because speedometers and
radar are not 100% accurate. Above that they were ruthless, and above
65 the fines went up and up and up...

I got to know their whereabouts pretty good by observing where others
got tickets. (I was *never* stopped, in part because my 1980 Rabbit
Diesel looked like it couldn't even go the speed limit anyway). Radar
detectors were illegal in MD back then, too, and they'd do things like
set up a radar gun on an overpass and watch whose brake lights came on
for no reason....

One night I'm sailing down the BWP in the *right* lane, and up behind
me comes a new Saab (Saabs were the hot car back then among the
yuppie-but-no-Beemer crowd). Dude flashes his brights at me - he wants
*me* to get in the *left* lane so he can pass without having to change
lanes!

So I ease up on the throttle and slow down to 53...52....51....

He gets ticked and crawls up but now I'm down to 50...49...

Flashes the brights, gets ticked, and I keep easing up....

Finally he gets ticked and goes into the left lane. Whereupon I start
speeding up again...52...55...58...62...

He pulls alongside and now is really steamed because it is taking far
more effort to get past me than he expected. So he drops down a gear
and stomps it and goes off in a cloud of dust, over the next rise and
around the curve.....

and I bring it back down to the limit...

and I wave as I go by him, because he's now stopped by a trooper for
going WAY over the limit.....

I wouldn't play games like that today, though...

73 de Jim, N2EY


Yeah, that was what I did a few...OK, more than a few...years ago. I'd
always do just that, as a matter of fact. BUT, one day, this guy began
throwing things out his window at me when I did finally move over and let
him go passed me! Scared the heck outta me...he was throwing anything loose
in his car, bottle caps, cracker jack box, etc. Thank goodness he didn't
come across the bottle!

Or the gun.

That's another reason I'm not so sure about letting
creepy people get ahead of me...it may be me having to come upon them once
again...

Better than having them behind you...

73 de Jim, N2EY

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


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.

This is an "every morning" thing. If they want to get to where they are
going quicker, then they need to adjust their scheduling, not make others
on
the road cater to their needs. I would not think of being obnoxious
because
I have to get somewhere quicker than anyone else--I would make the
decision
to get on the road earlier.

Sure.

Then why not apply that philosophy to yourself and get on the road early
enough
that the right lane gets you there on time?

Suppose you're sailing along on your 60 mph 4-lane-divided (2 lanes
each way) road and you come across two (non police) cars side-by-side
going exactly the speed limit.

What would you do? Would their behavior bother you?

Yes, their behavior would bother me--*but* they're the cops...

No, they're not!

I wrote: " two (non police) cars". Sorry if that wasn't clear!


Whoops, yeah, I missed that. You were clear.


What I meant was two ordinary drivers in ordinary vehicles - not police or
officials of any kind. Just two folks who decided to go the posted speed
limit
and no faster.

What would you do?


Regardless of who it is that is driving, I don't act like an idiot to them,
around them, about them, or anything. I would pace myself at my comfort
zone behind them--6, 7, or more carglengths, and cruise with them.


Then they should have gotten out earlier than me.

Why should *they* move to accomodate *you*? *You* won't accomodate them!


Yeah, I suppose...but my justification is that they can accommodate
themselves, by moving around. A) We are both speeding; B) At the point this
person is behind me wanting me to move over so he/she can get by, it's a
given that it's because we're both around a driver(s) in the right lane that
are going slower, right? So, what is it about the driver behind
me...practically shoving their hood up under my vehicle...that would compel
me to slow down, move over, reposition myself, when all they have to do is
allow *both* of us to keep speeding, i.e., stay above a speed limit we don't
want to drive, and wait the bit of time it will take to get passed the
"slower" traffic?

It's the same principle
as someone who's standing in the "fast" lane (misnomer most of the
time--GRIN) at the grocery store and I am ahead of them with 10 items and
they only have one or two. If they're prone to it, they'll tap their
foot;
sigh real loud, etc. Practically fall over trying to get me to notice
that
they only have "just this little bit." And, how dare I *not* yield to
them
and let them go ahead...and the next with one or two...and the next, etc.

Must be another regional thing - I've never encountered that around here.

Hey, next time, get there before me.

Different situation and principle.


I think the priniciple is the same. The root of my angst toward the driver
we are speaking of, is their attitude. The attitude that has them convinced
that they need to speed faster than someone else. Or that where they are
going is far more important than where I am going (when neither of us has
that information available to us).


In my case, my 70-75 mph (more near 70 most of the time) is probably more
due to the fact that, that is where my foot lands on the gas pedal.

?? "Where your foot lands"?

Two words: Cruise control.


Yeah. I thought when I got my truck with that on it, that I would always be
using it. I don't like it...don't know where to put my foot that I can
still have the same tactile feel with the brake pedal and gas pedal in
alignment with my placement of the foot. I don't feel "safe" with cruise
control engaged--plus the speeds of drivers is so erradic that one must keep
disengaging and reengaging it anyway. Never fails...set it to the flow of
traffic and 5-6 miles down the road, set it again.


I should probably count my blessings here, because this will jinx me.
I've
been stopped three times in my driving "career." Little enough that I
still
don't "know the routine" when I do get stopped. Only once I've been
ticketed

I wonder why....;-)


Once when I was speeding. And, by all rights that cop should have nailed
me. It was 11:30 at night, and my registration sticker (of which the new
one was at home) was out, inspection sticker was out--which I'd not paid any
attention to, *and* I couldn't find my insurance card. But, he let me go!
WOW!

and that was for taking a turn onto a street that doesn't allow
those turns at the time of morning I was doing it.

About 20 years ago, on a cold rainy Sunday night, I made a wrong turn onto
a
one way street in Philly. No "One Way" sign at the intersection, no "No
Right
Turn", just a stop sign. No cars on the street either.

Of course it didn't take long after the turn to realize something wasn't
right,
so I did a quick three-point turn. But it wasn't quick enough to avoid the
notice of two of Philadelphia's finest, who turned on the lights and
pulled me
over.

By the time he got to my car I had the license, registration and insurance
card
out, both hands on the wheel, and the window down so he could talk to me.

He took my papers and proceeded to run them through the computer in his
patrol
car.

Meanwhile, the young lady who was with me started giving me the third
degree as
to how I was going to handle the cop, how it wasn't my fault, how I should
"be
a man" and "stand up to him" and "talk my way out of it". I held up one
hand
and said "Be quiet. I'm the driver, it's my car and my license, and I
don't
argue with the police over something as minor as a ticket. That's what
traffic
court is for."

Officer came back, asked if I knew why he stopped me. I said "I was going
the
wrong way on a one-way street because there's no sign at the intersection
with
Pine Street. I turned around as soon as I realized it was a one-way
street, but
you were right to stop me and I can understand if you decide to give me a
ticket."

Officer handed me back my papers and said: "No ticket for you, your papers
are
all in order. We know all about the sign. Just be careful."

The young lady kept quiet, which was quite a miracle.

IOW, he was just waiting for somebody to give him a hard time.


Uh, I have a problem with cops in general. Most I've encountered are not
friendly. However, most I've encountered in a casual setting are great
guys/gals. I don't like the military form of communication--stern,
expressionless, etc., and it puts me on edge.


If they are going the speed limit where I am at (in the left lane), I'd
still calmly make the move to the right lane and go around them--when it
was
safe to--and wouldn't act like an idiot to them.

What if there was another car on the right and you couldn't go around?


Same as the non police (grin) scenario you gave me. I'd pace myself and
cruise. I also don't care or get all upset about traffic jams. I look at
them as an example to notice the birds flying around, look up under the
bridges to see if there's a poor homeless person up under there, look at all
the beauty I usually don't get to pay a whole lot of attention to--in fact
the traffic jam gives me the opportunity to find some sense of pleasantry in
places that really do require "closer inspection" to find it...(grin)

It is not any more "right"
for me to speed than the next person--it's just that they'd better decide
to
go around, because I will not be moving for them just because they are
going
to act like an idiot. I will move if I decide to...and I usually don't.
But it's just as OK for them to be speeding as me...I don't care. You
seem
to be stuck on the idea that I think they are wrong to speed faster than
I
speed.

Nope.

I'm stuck on the idea that you want to control the speed on the road.


Hmmm. You see it as me wanting to control the speed, I only think of it as
not giving in to the way I perceive someone to be acting.


Yep. And it's mine...(grin)

HAW!

I do believe some of all this is regional, however.

And I've done a few tricks myself....

Way back in the late '80s, I had reason to go back and forth between
Philly and Washington, DC about every other weekend. I noticed that
the aggressiveness of drivers increased in direct proportion to
proximity to the nation's capital.

The worst part of the run was the BWP (Baltimore Washington Parkway),
a no-trucks 4 lane road with trees on both sides, and also between the
northbound and southbound lanes. Lots of traffic on a Friday night,
and as one approached The District the cars got more expensive and the
drivers more aggressive.


Heh, heh...funny you should mention that.

It happened way too many times.


Sir, this is "Dallas" Texas, where arrogance and extravagance are not rare
things... BUT, I gotta say, I've never, ever seen a stretch limo or
"driven" car acting like that...they are generally over in the right lane!
This discussion just made me realize that, I think.


Back then the limit was 55 and traffic tended to stay below about 59
because enforcement was pretty good, and there were lots of places for
the troopers to hide in the trees, around curves, etc. The troopers
would not go after anyone below about 62 because speedometers and
radar are not 100% accurate. Above that they were ruthless, and above
65 the fines went up and up and up...

I got to know their whereabouts pretty good by observing where others
got tickets. (I was *never* stopped, in part because my 1980 Rabbit
Diesel looked like it couldn't even go the speed limit anyway). Radar
detectors were illegal in MD back then, too, and they'd do things like
set up a radar gun on an overpass and watch whose brake lights came on
for no reason....

One night I'm sailing down the BWP in the *right* lane, and up behind
me comes a new Saab (Saabs were the hot car back then among the
yuppie-but-no-Beemer crowd). Dude flashes his brights at me - he wants
*me* to get in the *left* lane so he can pass without having to change
lanes!

So I ease up on the throttle and slow down to 53...52....51....

He gets ticked and crawls up but now I'm down to 50...49...

Flashes the brights, gets ticked, and I keep easing up....

Finally he gets ticked and goes into the left lane. Whereupon I start
speeding up again...52...55...58...62...

He pulls alongside and now is really steamed because it is taking far
more effort to get past me than he expected. So he drops down a gear
and stomps it and goes off in a cloud of dust, over the next rise and
around the curve.....

and I bring it back down to the limit...

and I wave as I go by him, because he's now stopped by a trooper for
going WAY over the limit.....


Oh, I forgot to add when you originally noted this story...I toot and wave!


I wouldn't play games like that today, though...

73 de Jim, N2EY


Yeah, that was what I did a few...OK, more than a few...years ago. I'd
always do just that, as a matter of fact. BUT, one day, this guy began
throwing things out his window at me when I did finally move over and let
him go passed me! Scared the heck outta me...he was throwing anything
loose
in his car, bottle caps, cracker jack box, etc. Thank goodness he didn't
come across the bottle!

Or the gun.


Yeah, for sure :(


That's another reason I'm not so sure about letting
creepy people get ahead of me...it may be me having to come upon them
once
again...

Better than having them behind you...

73 de Jim, N2EY


To each his own...unless they're acting like an idiot ;)

Kim W5TIT

Kim W5TIT wrote:

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.

At least you're consistent. This is much the way you've defined your
behavior at cocktail parties and sporting events. It is also similar to
the way you act here.

Yeah, I suppose...but my justification is that they can accommodate
themselves, by moving around. A) We are both speeding; B) At the point this
person is behind me wanting me to move over so he/she can get by, it's a
given that it's because we're both around a driver(s) in the right lane that
are going slower, right? So, what is it about the driver behind
me...practically shoving their hood up under my vehicle...that would compel
me to slow down, move over, reposition myself, when all they have to do is
allow *both* of us to keep speeding, i.e., stay above a speed limit we don't
want to drive, and wait the bit of time it will take to get passed the
"slower" traffic?

I think the priniciple is the same. The root of my angst toward the driver
we are speaking of, is their attitude. The attitude that has them convinced
that they need to speed faster than someone else.

*They* need to speed faster than someone else? Aren't you speeding in
order to go faster than those who aren't speeding? Please express the
subtle nuances which make your case different.

Or that where they are
going is far more important than where I am going (when neither of us has
that information available to us).

I can't believe that these things cross your mind. You actually believe
that someone behind you has it in his head that where he's going is more
important than where you're going?

Yeah. I thought when I got my truck with that on it, that I would always be
using it. I don't like it...don't know where to put my foot that I can
still have the same tactile feel with the brake pedal and gas pedal in
alignment with my placement of the foot. I don't feel "safe" with cruise
control engaged--plus the speeds of drivers is so erradic that one must keep
disengaging and reengaging it anyway. Never fails...set it to the flow of
traffic and 5-6 miles down the road, set it again.

That's why they make it easy to cancel and set.

Once when I was speeding. And, by all rights that cop should have nailed
me. It was 11:30 at night, and my registration sticker (of which the new
one was at home) was out, inspection sticker was out--which I'd not paid any
attention to, *and* I couldn't find my insurance card. But, he let me go!
WOW!

Uh, I have a problem with cops in general. Most I've encountered are not
friendly.

That runs counter to those I've encountered. Maybe it's all in your
attitude toward them.

However, most I've encountered in a casual setting are great
guys/gals. I don't like the military form of communication--stern,
expressionless, etc., and it puts me on edge.

Same as the non police (grin) scenario you gave me. I'd pace myself and
cruise. I also don't care or get all upset about traffic jams. I look at
them as an example to notice the birds flying around, look up under the
bridges to see if there's a poor homeless person up under there, look at all
the beauty I usually don't get to pay a whole lot of attention to--in fact
the traffic jam gives me the opportunity to find some sense of pleasantry in
places that really do require "closer inspection" to find it...(grin)

Hmmm. You see it as me wanting to control the speed, I only think of it as
not giving in to the way I perceive someone to be acting.

Why should someone have to give in to the way they perceive you to be
acting?

Dave K8MN

"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

"N2EY" wrote:

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).


However, your child analogy falls apart when you remember that you're
talking about an adult - an adult that is going to get very angry at a
person blocking the fast lane while he and others are trying to pass. Lets
be realistic here. If Kim is intentionally blocking others on the roads, she
doesn't deserve courtesy. Instead, she is more likely to be a victim of road
rage (something else she doesn't deserve, but far more likely). If she
manages to avoid that, and if one of those people she is blocking just
happens to be a cop, she may instead eventually get a ticket for not driving
on the right.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

N2EY wrote:
"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.

So you are saying that in order to show the idiot where the bear went
in the buckwheat that you have to act like the idiot?

Agressive drivers are known to do some pretty insane things. Even if
that piece of incorrect logic would be correct, the aggressive driver
may be "provoked" (in his or her mind) to get even with the person ahead
of him in the lane by doing something like a high speed rear-ending.

"Rewarding" or "teaching a lesson" or "showing them" or whatever doesn't
work.

No thanks, if someone is going to be an idiot on the road, they can do
it in front of me. I'll pull off and let 'em pass!


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).

The time for teaching courtesy to them has long passed. Ain't gonna happen.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Dwight Stewart wrote:
"N2EY" wrote:

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).



However, your child analogy falls apart when you remember that you're
talking about an adult - an adult that is going to get very angry at a
person blocking the fast lane while he and others are trying to pass. Lets
be realistic here. If Kim is intentionally blocking others on the roads, she
doesn't deserve courtesy. Instead, she is more likely to be a victim of road
rage (something else she doesn't deserve, but far more likely). If she
manages to avoid that, and if one of those people she is blocking just
happens to be a cop, she may instead eventually get a ticket for not driving
on the right.


In some states, like Washington, you are in violation if you have 5
cars behind you regardless of the speed, and are required to pull over.

And yes, the police will ticket a person for interfereing with the flow
of traffic.

- Mike KB3EIA -