|
"Mike Coslo" wrote: 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. Yep, many states now have similar laws (driving to right except passing, blocking traffic, interfering with flow of traffic, and so on). Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message link.net...
"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 A biological adult who is acting like a spoiled child. 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!!) Some "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. Let them behave like adults, then. Following too closely for the speed of travel is not adult behavior, regardless of what Kim is doing. Lets be realistic here. OK, fine. It's realistic to behave in a safe responsible way when driving a motor vehicle. If Kim is intentionally blocking others on the roads, she doesn't deserve courtesy. She's only blocking those who want to speed faster than she wants to speed. Suppose several cars were to line up side-by-side on a multilane divided highway and go exactly the speed limit. Would that justify the "idiot" behaviors Kim describes? Suppose they were police cars.... 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. Agreed! That's why I previously said I let the "idiots" get past, because I'd rather have them in front of me than behind me. But the behavior/reward model I gave is valid. For both children and alleged adults. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
ink.net... "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. I am not "intentionally" blocking anyone, Dwight. I am driving. That's all. 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/ Nope, the only ticket would probably be for speeding... Kim W5TIT |
"N2EY" wrote in message
om... "Dwight Stewart" wrote in message link.net... "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 A biological adult who is acting like a spoiled child. 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!!) Some "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. Let them behave like adults, then. Following too closely for the speed of travel is not adult behavior, regardless of what Kim is doing. Lets be realistic here. OK, fine. It's realistic to behave in a safe responsible way when driving a motor vehicle. If Kim is intentionally blocking others on the roads, she doesn't deserve courtesy. She's only blocking those who want to speed faster than she wants to speed. Suppose several cars were to line up side-by-side on a multilane divided highway and go exactly the speed limit. Would that justify the "idiot" behaviors Kim describes? Suppose they were police cars.... 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. Agreed! That's why I previously said I let the "idiots" get past, because I'd rather have them in front of me than behind me. But the behavior/reward model I gave is valid. For both children and alleged adults. 73 de Jim, N2EY Well, I suppose it's valid, Jim. I've really never given the "behavior" such thought, i.e. analogy, etc. BUT, I am generally a very even tempered person and I don't feel I'm in any way wrong to stay in the lane I've chosen to drive in, above the posted speed, safely, forming safe distances between myself and drivers ahead of me, and never-minding nitwits behind me who think I should "yield" to them so they can speed faster and keep making each successive vehicle move. Kim W5TIT |
N2EY wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message link.net... "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 A biological adult who is acting like a spoiled child. 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!!) Some "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. Let them behave like adults, then. Following too closely for the speed of travel is not adult behavior, regardless of what Kim is doing. Lets be realistic here. OK, fine. It's realistic to behave in a safe responsible way when driving a motor vehicle. If Kim is intentionally blocking others on the roads, she doesn't deserve courtesy. She's only blocking those who want to speed faster than she wants to speed. Okay, who made her the arbiter of how fast the lane travels? Kim has no more the right to limit other drivers speed than I do to limit hers, if I were to try the same tactic. Suppose several cars were to line up side-by-side on a multilane divided highway and go exactly the speed limit. Would that justify the "idiot" behaviors Kim describes? Nope. Nothing ever justifies idiot behavior. Suppose they were police cars.... Then I suspect I would go the speed limit! 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. Agreed! That's why I previously said I let the "idiots" get past, because I'd rather have them in front of me than behind me. But the behavior/reward model I gave is valid. For both children and alleged adults. Another model I can think of for this kind of behavior is when a person feels stressed out, out of control, and is in a bad mood. The other drivers, those going faster or slower are an irritant. You're traveling along, and someone comes up behind you and invades your "auto persanl space". You can exert just a little smidgem of control, and spread a little stress on the other driver by taking just a liiittlle biit looonggerr to get out of his/her way. If you get them to react to you, short of provoking a roadrage incident, you get a little dose of satisfaction. I'll bet everyone here has done something like that one time or another. And as George Carlin points out: Have you ever noticed? Anybody going slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a moron. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"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). 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. 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" wrote: I am not "intentionally" blocking anyone, Dwight. I am driving. That's all. But if you are intentionally not moving to the right, not yielding to others trying to pass, that is not all. If Texas is like many states, you have a legal obligation to drive on the right to allow others to pass. There is rarely an exception which allows you to ignore these laws when you feel it is justified - when you feel others are driving too fast or you feel others are violating the laws, for examples. It is true these laws are rarely enforced, but that doesn't mean they're never enforced. For example, you will most often see these laws enforced when there are multiple car accidents where the slower vehicle causing the congestion necessary for this type of accident is ticketed (with that driver being responsible for the damage to all vehicles involved). Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
In article , "Kim "
writes: "N2EY" wrote in message . com... "Dwight Stewart" wrote in message hlink.net... "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 A biological adult who is acting like a spoiled child. 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!!) Some "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. Let them behave like adults, then. Following too closely for the speed of travel is not adult behavior, regardless of what Kim is doing. Lets be realistic here. OK, fine. It's realistic to behave in a safe responsible way when driving a motor vehicle. If Kim is intentionally blocking others on the roads, she doesn't deserve courtesy. She's only blocking those who want to speed faster than she wants to speed. Suppose several cars were to line up side-by-side on a multilane divided highway and go exactly the speed limit. Would that justify the "idiot" behaviors Kim describes? Suppose they were police cars.... 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. Agreed! That's why I previously said I let the "idiots" get past, because I'd rather have them in front of me than behind me. But the behavior/reward model I gave is valid. For both children and alleged adults. 73 de Jim, N2EY Well, I suppose it's valid, Jim. Thank you I've really never given the "behavior" such thought, i.e. analogy, etc. Think about it. You've dealt with children - isn't it true that they will tend to repeat behavior that gets them what they want? If whining works, don't you get more whining? It's illogical to think that sort of thing isn't present in adults. BUT, I am generally a very even tempered person and I don't feel I'm in any way wrong to stay in the lane I've chosen to drive in, above the posted speed, safely, forming safe distances between myself and drivers ahead of me, and never-minding nitwits behind me who think I should "yield" to them so they can speed faster and keep making each successive vehicle move. Would you agree that if you *do* yield, you validate their behavior and in a small way encourage them to do more of it? Personally, I move, because I care more about my own safety. But that's just me. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
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. 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? 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. 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. 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? 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. 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. 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. 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? 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 |
N2EY wrote:
In article , "Kim " writes: "N2EY" wrote in message .com... "Dwight Stewart" wrote in message thlink.net... "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 A biological adult who is acting like a spoiled child. 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!!) Some "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. Let them behave like adults, then. Following too closely for the speed of travel is not adult behavior, regardless of what Kim is doing. Lets be realistic here. OK, fine. It's realistic to behave in a safe responsible way when driving a motor vehicle. If Kim is intentionally blocking others on the roads, she doesn't deserve courtesy. She's only blocking those who want to speed faster than she wants to speed. Suppose several cars were to line up side-by-side on a multilane divided highway and go exactly the speed limit. Would that justify the "idiot" behaviors Kim describes? Suppose they were police cars.... 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. Agreed! That's why I previously said I let the "idiots" get past, because I'd rather have them in front of me than behind me. But the behavior/reward model I gave is valid. For both children and alleged adults. 73 de Jim, N2EY Well, I suppose it's valid, Jim. Thank you I've really never given the "behavior" such thought, i.e. analogy, etc. Think about it. You've dealt with children - isn't it true that they will tend to repeat behavior that gets them what they want? If whining works, don't you get more whining? It's illogical to think that sort of thing isn't present in adults. BUT, I am generally a very even tempered person and I don't feel I'm in any way wrong to stay in the lane I've chosen to drive in, above the posted speed, safely, forming safe distances between myself and drivers ahead of me, and never-minding nitwits behind me who think I should "yield" to them so they can speed faster and keep making each successive vehicle move. Would you agree that if you *do* yield, you validate their behavior and in a small way encourage them to do more of it? I don't think they even think of it. If you don't move, they will pass on the right. I've seen berm passing both right and left. They are idiots, and probably wouldn't understand anything subtle. I wonder if any of them realize why it takes so long for the officer to issue them the ticket? Slowing the jerks up by a half hour or so in addition to lightening their wallet is somethig they understand. - Mike KB3EIA - |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:32 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com