"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

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

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?


What I meant by my comment was that I've never really thought of it much
beyond just making a conscious decision not to "give in," "yield," "cave,"
whatever one wishes to call it. But I agree, it'd be much the same as with
a child.


It's illogical to think that sort of thing isn't present in adults.


I agree again, and it is...I see it in my training sessions and elsewhere
every day at work ;)


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?


Absolutely.


Personally, I move, because I care more about my own safety. But that's
just
me.

73 de Jim, N2EY


I am probably lately more apt to be ignorant of my own safety in a steady
determination to "dammit, stop allowing others to treat me like that"
attitude. I've been in one of those attitudes for a while now. I'm kind of
liking it.

Kim W5TIT

"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! :o


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

Dwight Stewart wrote:
"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.

Especially when one is already breaking the law themselves by speeding
as TWIT admits to doing.

N2EY wrote:



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?

Yes, in Texas it is the law. You are supposed to drive in the right lane
and use the left lane for passing, even if you are doing the speed limit
or over, you are obliged to pull to the right lane to let another pass.
The following is an exerpt from an article in the Ft. Worth Star
Telegram, April 12, 2003.
************************************
Texans must drive in the right-hand lane.

In other words -- move over.

Yes, you. Get out of the left lane.

I don't care how fast you're driving. Or what the speed limit is.

Texas law is blunt.

Except to pass, motorists "shall drive in the right-hand lane."

Both chronic slowpokes and self-appointed speed-limit vigilantes were
stung by transportation writer Gordon Dickson's report. He told how
habitual left-lane drivers are "despised" and how some traffic engineers
believe they cause wrecks.

I am not going to defend the lunatics who zoom up from behind at rush
hour, bearing down two inches behind your rear bumper and so close that
you can smell the extra-grande Starbucks coffee on their breath.

But the law is the law. Yes, it says drivers can't speed or tailgate.
But it also says to stay out of the left lane.

Some violators are obviously in denial.

N2EY wrote:



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?

So what is the max speed you can go in a 15 mph school zone?

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"N2EY" wrote in message
[snip all the long thread]
'Zactly.

Kim W5TIT

Just to illustrate the idiocy of some of the people on the freeway, I'll
throw in a personal anecdote. I was driving down a multilane freeway
through a construction zone and I was in the rightmost lane. I was going
with the flow of the traffic in the slow lane, which was slightly above the
limit posted for the construction zone. A semi truck comes up behind me,
rides my bumper, honks, flashes his lights. Now, I'm already in the slow
lane with no way to speed up since the vehicles ahead of me aren't going any
faster and wouldn't want to anyway as there is too much chance to hurt a
construction worker plus fines in construction zones are very steep here.
This idiot keeps it up until we are out of the construction zone and it is
possible to move further to the right.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"JJ" wrote in message
...
N2EY wrote:



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?

Yes, in Texas it is the law. You are supposed to drive in the right lane
and use the left lane for passing, even if you are doing the speed limit
or over, you are obliged to pull to the right lane to let another pass.
The following is an exerpt from an article in the Ft. Worth Star
Telegram, April 12, 2003.
************************************
Texans must drive in the right-hand lane.

In other words -- move over.

Yes, you. Get out of the left lane.

I don't care how fast you're driving. Or what the speed limit is.

Texas law is blunt.

Except to pass, motorists "shall drive in the right-hand lane."

Both chronic slowpokes and self-appointed speed-limit vigilantes were
stung by transportation writer Gordon Dickson's report. He told how
habitual left-lane drivers are "despised" and how some traffic engineers
believe they cause wrecks.

I am not going to defend the lunatics who zoom up from behind at rush
hour, bearing down two inches behind your rear bumper and so close that
you can smell the extra-grande Starbucks coffee on their breath.

But the law is the law. Yes, it says drivers can't speed or tailgate.
But it also says to stay out of the left lane.

Some violators are obviously in denial.


How does the Texas law address the use of highways with say 4 or more lanes?
If everyone is supposed to stay in the right lane except to pass, the
highway then fails in its design purpose, i.e. to reduce congestion. The
law would seem to indicate that no more than two lanes in each direction are
ever needed.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"N2EY" wrote:

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


And I could just as easily say mine is an accurate description.


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?


You're not that ignorant of the traffic laws around the country, Jim. In
most states, slower vehicles must drive in the right lane (or right lanes on
multiple lane roads), drivers should not impede the flow of traffic, and
drivers must allow others to pass. Of course she doesn't have to slow down
to do so. Instead, she would be expected to move to the right as soon as
there is an opening for her to do so (instead of camping out in the left
lane because she is driving fast enough).


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?


Don't be silly, Jim. I don't live in your state. I've already said that is
the law in "most" states, which obviously isn't a statement about all
states. If you have any question about the laws in your specific state, look
it up yourself. After all, it's your motor vehicle code, not mine.


It's everyone's business.


It's everyone's business to enforce the traffic laws by taking direct
action on the highways? I suppose you're also going to say she should chase
speeders down the highway and ram their vehicles if they refuse to stop. The
last thing we need is self-styled vigilantes on our nation's highways.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"JJ" wrote:

Yes, in Texas it is the law. You are
supposed to drive in the right lane
and use the left lane for passing, even
if you are doing the speed limit or
over, you are obliged to pull to the
right lane to let another pass. The
following is an exerpt from an article
in the Ft. Worth Star Telegram,
April 12, 2003.
************************************
Texans must drive in the right-hand lane.

In other words -- move over.

Yes, you. Get out of the left lane.

I don't care how fast you're driving. Or
what the speed limit is.

Texas law is blunt. (snip)


Thanks for looking that up, JJ. I suspected it was the law in Texas. I
suspect it is also the law in Jim's state. Most states have, or are passing,
laws in this regard because of studies which show that drivers who refuse to
move to the right to allow others to pass cause accidents. I haven't seen
these studies myself, but I've heard mention of them in debates about these
laws.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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