"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 -

"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/

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

How does the Texas law address the
use of highways with say 4 or more
lanes? (snip)


It's on the driver's test in most states - you drive with the "flow of
traffic" in any specific lane (neither too fast or too slow for that lane,
with the far left lane always reserved for passing). You'll see "flow of
traffic" repeated in many driver's test questions (how to merge with traffic
when entering a highway and so on).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

Why should it be *me* who has to yield
to someone else to be courteous to them,
when it is *them* acting unsafe, (snip)


It's not just you - it's everybody driving in the left lane. If someone
wants to pass, everyone has to let them do so. If they're speeding, the cops
will eventually get them (that's what they're there for). If each driver is
allowed to set the speed others can drive, what will stop it from reaching
an extreme (I'm sure there is someone who doesn't think people should drive
faster then 45 mph)?


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

Dee D. Flint wrote:

"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.

Slower traffic stays to the right no matter how many lanes, if you are
in the left most lane of a four lane expressway you should move right to
give way to faster traffic.

Dwight Stewart wrote:

"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.

I've read one. It notes that vehicles tend to get clogged up for that
reason, and that you end up with odd clots of vehicles all bunched
together, with a few people that want to get ahead of the clot.
Dangerous? You betchya! Their recommendation was that laws about letting
people pass, pullover when followed by too many cars, and enforcement
that takes into account traffic flow rather than absolute speed was
important.

Personally, I've found that the cure is to travel between those nasty
clots of traffic. I don't have to worry about all the brake checks and
close-in driving at 75 mph. I get there about 10 seconds after all the
smart people driving inside the clot!

- Mike KB3EIA -

"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.


That was an excerpt from the Startlegram? Shocking.

This violator isn't in denial at all. This violator is waiting for mere
words to turn into action...

Kim W5TIT

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
gy.com...

"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


You must have been driving near Dallas...GRIN

Kim W5TIT

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
gy.com...

"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


Well, I don't believe what JJ (or my husband, incidentally) is saying is
correct. I just went to the State of TX DPS website looking to see if I
could find the traffic laws, but it looks more involved (read: ridiculously
arranged) than I had thought it would be... I'll find it.

www.baetzler.de/humor/texas_driving_rules.html in the meantime!

Kim W5TIT

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
ink.net...
"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),


I'd go along with that. However, I have always (maybe incorrectly, but...)
interpreted that "rule" to mean traffic that is going *slower than the
posted speed.* Wrong? Right? If the rule is designed to facilitate a
smooth flow of traffic *and* driver safety, why would it be contrary to the
safety aspect by making drivers constantly adjust to how much or little
someone is following the posted speed? The *flow of traffic* is probably
meant to imply flow of traffic at posted speeds.


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).


I'd *almost* be willing to bet that I am more in line with the law--and even
the spirit of the law--than a person behind me acting like an idiot. I am
acting like an idiot, too, because you are correct in feeling that I could
just move over. But I liken it to the same thing as someone who is at an
intersection with others--in Texas it is common (though I would venture to
say illegal) that the first person at a stop sign goes first. This practice
ignores all right-of-way laws I learned when I was learning to drive, but it
is common practice. So, do I part from common practice and keep sitting at
a stop sign, waiting for the person going straight to go through the
intersection before I take my turn?


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.


I am looking for that now.


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/


Then, maybe I should stop calling police when I see drunk and/or unsafe
drivers on the road?

Kim W5TIT

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
nk.net...
"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/


I don't accept JJ's submission at all. Perhaps if he'd reference more than
just the name of a newspaper, I could go and do some research myself. What
*part* of the "submission" from JJ is actually from the newspaper? The line
that says, "Texans must drive in the right-hand lane" or the rest or any
other part of it? I just tried on the Startlegram (an affectionate local
colloquialism for the Ft Worth newspaper) to lookup any news article with
"traffic" in it and didn't pull a thing related to what JJ has above. Not
even anything remotely connected for that matter.

So, JJ, how 'bout something a little more concrete. By the way, the
research did just net that beginning on Sep 1 of this year there is some new
law in effect regarding police safety on highways during traffic stops.

Kim W5TIT

"JJ" wrote

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 don't know about Texas law, but I spent part of the spring and early
summer in Germany. Over there you ABSOLUTELY stay out of the left lane
unless you in the act of overtaking and passing. If you dilly-dally around
in that lane and hold up traffic overtaking you from the rear, you'll be
cited and the fine is of some consequence (250 Euro's if I recall
correctly.) Traffic in Germany is SO much better, because everyone moves
crisply in and out of the 'passing lanes', rather than the buttheads here
who take their sweet leisurely time about overtaking and passing, often just
1 or 2 MPH faster than the right hand traffic lane is moving.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
gy.com...

"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


You must have been driving near Dallas...GRIN

Kim W5TIT



Nope. It was near Detroit, MI.

We also have a problem that sometimes mandates driving regularly in the
leftmost lane in some areas. We have a lot of left side freeway exits.
Sometimes traffic is heavy enough that you'd better get into that left lane
at least 5 miles before you get to the exit or you will never be able to get
over to it.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
[snip]
But I liken it to the same thing as someone who is at an
intersection with others--in Texas it is common (though I would venture to
say illegal) that the first person at a stop sign goes first. This
practice
ignores all right-of-way laws I learned when I was learning to drive, but
it
is common practice. So, do I part from common practice and keep sitting
at
a stop sign, waiting for the person going straight to go through the
intersection before I take my turn?

The typical law in the states that I am familiar with is that at a 4 way
stop says that the person arriving at the stop first goes through the
intersection first. If two or more vehicles arrive simultaneously, the one
furthest to the right in the circle goes first (i.e. the person who has no
vehicle immediately to his/her right at the intersection). If four arrive
simultaneously, well there's no rule for that and someone has to take the
courteous route of gesturing the cross traffic across before taking their
turn.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 22:17:03 GMT, KØHB wrote:

I don't know about Texas law, but I spent part of the spring and early
summer in Germany. Over there you ABSOLUTELY stay out of the left lane
unless you in the act of overtaking and passing. If you dilly-dally around
in that lane and hold up traffic overtaking you from the rear, you'll be
cited and the fine is of some consequence

IIRC Ohio and a bunch of other states had that law years ago. I
don't know if they still do - I'll leave that to the Ahians.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 23:31:33 GMT, Dee D. Flint wrote:

We also have a problem that sometimes mandates driving regularly in the
leftmost lane in some areas. We have a lot of left side freeway exits.
Sometimes traffic is heavy enough that you'd better get into that left lane
at least 5 miles before you get to the exit or you will never be able to get
over to it.

We have one spot on a major freeway in Portland (US 26 eastbound)
where it goes into a three-way split very shortly after a tunnel in
which there is no lane changes permitted. There are big signs
"urging" motorists to get in the proper lane long before the tunnel
because both the left-hand split (I-405 North) and the right-hand
split (I-405 South) do not have convenient exits for recovering from
a bad choice. The straight-ahead split leaves you on the downtown
streets, which again does not have a convenient recovery option.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

I don't accept JJ's submission at all.


One has to register to view the The Ft. Worth Star Telegram's article
archives, so I didn't look any further. However, will you accept a
submission from the National Highway Traffic Safety Adminstration (DOT)
website instead? If so, this link will take you to a description of Texas
traffic laws. Scroll down words "Minimum Speed Limit" on the left and then
read the information to the right of that (quoted below).

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/inju...98/txspeed.htm

Minimum Speed Limit:
I. No person shall drive so slowly
as to impede the normal and
reasonable movement of traffic.
Tran. Code §545.363(a)
II. A person, driving at less than the
normal speed of traffic, shall drive in
the right-hand lane then available for
traffic or as close as practicable to
the right-hand curb or edge of the
roadway. Tran. Code §545.051(b)


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

I'd go along with that. However, I
have always (maybe incorrectly,
but...) interpreted that "rule" to mean
traffic that is going *slower than the
posted speed.* Wrong? Right?
(snip)


In general, you're right. Nobody is supposed to break the speed limit, so
laws about slower vehicles moving to the right and not impeding the flow of
traffic don't defend the speeder's actions. But, by the same token, slower
drivers are supposed to move to the right and not impede the flow of traffic
(if those are the laws in your state), so someone speeding doesn't defend
the actions of the slower driver who is impeding the flow of traffic either.
I know that sounds strange, but there is some logic behind it. On multiple
lane highways, congestion (cars bunching too closely together) is one of the
most common causes of accidents. And congestion is dangerious at all highway
speeds, but even more so when drivers are speeding. To prevent that bunching
up, many states have adopted laws to encourage slower drivers to move to the
right so faster vehicles can proceed without bunching up behind the slower
vehicle. The idea is to keep all vehicles flowing smoothly - yes, even if
some are speeding.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

The typical law in the states that I am
familiar with is that at a 4 way stop
says that the person arriving at the stop
first goes through the intersection first.
If two or more vehicles arrive
simultaneously, the one furthest to the
right in the circle goes first (i.e. the
person who has no vehicle immediately
to his/her right at the intersection). If four
arrive simultaneously, well there's no rule
for that and someone has to take the
courteous route of gesturing the cross
traffic across before taking their turn.


Exactly the same in each of the states I'm familiar with (and that is a
good number of states).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

Kim W5TIT wrote:
"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.



That was an excerpt from the Startlegram? Shocking.

This violator isn't in denial at all. This violator is waiting for mere
words to turn into action...

Kim W5TIT


So your mentality is, "until I am caught, I will continue to break the
law." Do you speed throught school zones with that same attitude?

Kim W5TIT wrote:



I don't accept JJ's submission at all. Perhaps if he'd reference more than
just the name of a newspaper, I could go and do some research myself. What
*part* of the "submission" from JJ is actually from the newspaper? The line
that says, "Texans must drive in the right-hand lane" or the rest or any
other part of it? I just tried on the Startlegram (an affectionate local
colloquialism for the Ft Worth newspaper) to lookup any news article with
"traffic" in it and didn't pull a thing related to what JJ has above. Not
even anything remotely connected for that matter.

So, JJ, how 'bout something a little more concrete. By the way, the
research did just net that beginning on Sep 1 of this year there is some new
law in effect regarding police safety on highways during traffic stops.

Here, go read it yourself, assuming you can read, if not, maybe your
kids can read it to you.

http://www.broward.com/mld/starteleg...dy/5618883.htm

"KØHB" wrote:

I don't know about Texas law, but I
spent part of the spring and early
summer in Germany. Over there you
ABSOLUTELY stay out of the left
lane unless you in the act of overtaking
and passing. If you dilly-dally around
in that lane and hold up traffic overtaking
you from the rear, you'll be cited and the
fine is of some consequence (250 Euro's
if I recall correctly.) Traffic in Germany
is SO much better, because everyone
moves crisply in and out of the 'passing
lanes', rather than the buttheads here who
take their sweet leisurely time about
overtaking and passing, often just 1 or 2
MPH faster than the right hand traffic
lane is moving.


I really enjoyed driving in Germany also. At first, the autobahns were
shocking. But, after I got used to it (a couple of years), I drove just as
fast as everyone else. Later, after I gained more experience (and a vehicle
that could safely do it), driving at 110 to 120 mph on the autobahn was
fairly routine - faster if I was in a hurry to get somewhere. At those
speeds, it is critical for all drivers to cooperate.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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