"JJ" wrote:

(snip) The law plainly states that if you are
in the left lane and not passing other traffic
you should be in the right lane. (snip)


It clearly doesn't say that, JJ. Instead, it says, "An operator of a
vehicle on a roadway moving more slowly than the normal speed of other
vehicles at the time and place under the existing conditions shall drive in
the right-hand lane available for vehicles." In other words, the only time
one must absolutely be in the right lane of a multiple-lane highway is when
moving more slowly than other vehicles. This clearly supports the idea that
one must move to the right to let others pass, but it doesn't support your
premise that on must always drive in the right lane.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

Dwight Stewart wrote:

"JJ" wrote:

Suggest you read 545.051 of the law in
my previous post.



I've read it, JJ. Instead, I suggest you read it again because you've
misinterpreted what it says. Section 545.051(a) refers to driving on the
opposite side of the highway - the side for traffic traveling in the
opposite direction.

Yes it does, but we are talking about a multiple lane road which item
(b) deals with.

Section 545.051(b) refers to driving in the right lane
if moving slower than other traffic. But, again, absolutely nothing says
the left lane is only for passing - nothing says a person can't drive in the
left lane on a multiple-lane highway when not interfering with the flow of
traffic.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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


If there are no other vehicles in the left lane then no, you do not have
to move to the right lane. But what started this argument is kimmygirl
saying that just because someone comes up behind her wanting to go
faster than she is dosen't mean she has to yield by moving to the right.

Here are her exact words from her posting of 12/2/03.

"It's fine for them to go 20 mph above the speed limit. It's fine if
they want to go 30-40 mph above the speed limit. But, they won't find
me moving out of their way; they'll have to go around because I am not
moving into a lane where I have to slow down, or even get "stuck" there
for a while, if there happens to be more than one vehicle that wants to
go past."

So her take is she has a perfect right to set in the left lane because
she dosen't have to yield to faster traffic. As long as she is passing
traffic to the right OK, but when she has passed the traffic to the
right she is obligated by the law to move to the right and yield to the
faster traffic, even if she thinks they are speeding. If she is going as
fast or slower than the traffic to the right then she is not passing
and, as the law plainly states, she should move to the right lane to
yield to any faster traffic. In plain words the law says, drive to the
right and pass to the left and if you are in the left lane, yield to
faster traffic by moving to the right. Very simple.

"JJ" wrote:

"Dwight Stewart" wrote:
Section 545.051(b) refers to driving
in the right lane if moving slower than
other traffic. But, again, absolutely
nothing says the left lane is only for
passing - nothing says a person can't
drive in the left lane on a multiple-lane
highway when not interfering with the
flow of traffic.

If there are no other vehicles in the
left lane then no, you do not have
to move to the right lane. But what
started this argument is kimmygirl
saying that... (snip)


That may be what started this discussion, but I was responding to your
comments posted 12/23/03 (6:08 PM), in which you said....

"Sounds pretty simple, the left lane
is for passing, you should always
keep to the right except for passing."

As noted above, nothing in Section 545.051 supports that position. A
person can drive in the left lane, even without passing, as long as there is
no interference with the flow of traffic.

Notice that the words "left" and "right" were corrected in the 12/23/03
quote to reflect your stated intent (you had reversed those two words in the
original message, but corrected that in a follow-up message).

Merry Christmas, JJ. After posting this, I'm going to sit back and drink
some hot chocolate while listening to some good Christmas music. After that,
perhaps I'll go back to bed for a few hours (that bed was mighty warm and
comfortable).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

In article , JJ
writes:

If there are no other vehicles in the left lane then no, you do not have
to move to the right lane. But what started this argument is kimmygirl
saying that just because someone comes up behind her wanting to go
faster than she is dosen't mean she has to yield by moving to the right.

Exactly!

Here are her exact words from her posting of 12/2/03.

"It's fine for them to go 20 mph above the speed limit. It's fine if
they want to go 30-40 mph above the speed limit. But, they won't find
me moving out of their way; they'll have to go around because I am not
moving into a lane where I have to slow down, or even get "stuck" there
for a while, if there happens to be more than one vehicle that wants to
go past."

So her take is she has a perfect right to set in the left lane because
she dosen't have to yield to faster traffic. As long as she is passing
traffic to the right OK, but when she has passed the traffic to the
right she is obligated by the law to move to the right and yield to the
faster traffic, even if she thinks they are speeding.

*IF* there is someone behind who wants to go faster.

If she is going as
fast or slower than the traffic to the right then she is not passing
and, as the law plainly states, she should move to the right lane to
yield to any faster traffic. In plain words the law says, drive to the
right and pass to the left and if you are in the left lane, yield to
faster traffic by moving to the right. Very simple.

Not exactly, but close. How about this:

"When there are multiple lanes for the same direction, slower traffic must keep
to the right unless an exception as listed below applies. 'Slower traffic'
refers to any vehicle that is impeding the flow of traffic behind it.

Exceptions:

- When a vehicle has to be in a certain lane(s) to exit, enter or turn.
- When a vehicle has to avoid certain lane(s) that require an exit or turn.
- When dividers, signs, road markings or other traffic control devices prohibit
changing lanes.
- In any emergency situation"

The above isn't from any traffic code, it's just my interpretation. But do you
see any holes in it?

Reading all these posts has convinced me that intentionally blocking the left
lane on a multilane divided highway just to avoid letting others pass (and
having to slow down oneself) is a violation of the Texas laws as written - even
if both the passer is speeding.

In fact, in the case Kim describes, I would not be surprised if the LEOs pulled
over both cars and wrote multiple violations for speeding, impeding the flow of
traffic and following too closely. And that's the short list.

So my advice remains: Move over and let the "idiot" go past.

--

Dwight has the right idea. Turkey's in the oven, fresh cup of tea is waiting
for me. Perfect running weather this morning, I was out for 40 minutes.

Merry Christmas to all

73 de Jim, N2EY

JJ wrote:
Dee D. Flint wrote:


You are being deliberately obtuse. Kim repeatedly stated that she was
going
the same speed as the other cars in the lane that she was in not the
lanes
to her right. She was going with the normal flow of traffic in the
lane she
was in. It should be obvious to the most casual observer that she was
not
blocking traffic in the left lane as she was going at the speed of the
traffic in that lane.


If other traffic behind her is attempting to go faster than she is, she
*is* blocking traffic unless she is passing traffic in the right lane.

That ONE car tries to force her to move over does not

constitute impeding the flow of traffic as the blockhead that is
trying to
get her to move over will have to attempt the same maneuver with all the
other cars in the lane.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


Stop trying to make something complicated out of a simple Texas law. If
kim or anyone else is in the left lane, they are obligated to move to
the right for any faster traffic. The law plainly states that if you are
in the left lane and not passing other traffic you should be in the
right lane. As long as she is passing the other traffic in the right
lane, then being in the left lane is where she should be, but as soon as
she passes the traffic in the right lane she should move over to the
right to let faster traffic pass. What is so hard for you and kim to
understand about that?


psst..... think about failure to yield....

- Mike KB3EIA -

"JJ" wrote in message
...
Kim W5TIT wrote:


Simple 'nuff, find a *LAW* and I'll accept that it is illegal to drive
in
left lanes, otherwise, you're allowing yourself to be impressioned for
the
benefit of winning a side to an argument--which, of course, I am also.
Seems I'm winning, though...

Not so fast tits.


OK, Dick-less...


Law, JJ, not suggestions, not a manual, not
someone's (as in the circumstance with your submitted commentary)
interpretation, but law.

Here is the response I received from Bud Kennedy, the author of the
article.

Hi Bill,

Thanks for your note.

Your friend obviously thinks she knows everything, so she probably will
think she knows more than the law or the DPS. - (boy does he have you
pegged - jj)


Well, JJ, maybe your columnist thinks he knows everything, but I think he's
wrong on his assessment of the law, here.
And, while I'm at it...since you're so obsessed with my tits, perhaps you
can't think clearly enough...

You have it your way, I'll have it mine. And, if I ever get a ticket for
driving the way I do and will continue to do...I'll let ya know...

Kim W5TIT

"JJ" wrote in message
...
Dee D. Flint wrote:

"JJ" wrote in message
...

Kim W5TIT wrote:


Simple 'nuff, find a *LAW* and I'll accept that it is illegal to drive

in

left lanes, otherwise, you're allowing yourself to be impressioned for

the

benefit of winning a side to an argument--which, of course, I am also.
Seems I'm winning, though...

Not so fast tits.


Law, JJ, not suggestions, not a manual, not
someone's (as in the circumstance with your submitted commentary)
interpretation, but law.

Here is the response I received from Bud Kennedy, the author of the

article.

Hi Bill,

Thanks for your note.

Your friend obviously thinks she knows everything, so she probably will
think she knows more than the law or the DPS. - (boy does he have you
pegged - jj)

I quoted the law in the column. It's from 545.051 --

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statu...tr0054500.html

+(b) An operator of a vehicle on a roadway moving more slowly than the
normal speed of other vehicles at the time and place under the existing
conditions shall drive in the right-hand lane available for vehicles, or
as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway,
unless the operator is:

+(1) passing another vehicle; or
+(2) preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road
or driveway.

This law is not defined by the speed limit. It is defined by the "normal
speed of other vehicles."

In other words, if you're driving slower than other drivers, you "shall"
move over.

Write again or anytime

--Bud



Well Kim has several times stated that she was driving at the normal
speed
of the other drivers in the lane. So your quotation makes Kim correct.
That a single individual wants to drive much faster than the rest of the
traffic does not make Kim wrong for not moving. She may or may not be
unwise depending on the overall circumstances but from this quotation is
not
doing anything illegal.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

It should be obvious to the most casual of observers that if you are in
the left lane and other traffic is attempting to go faster than you are,
even if you are driving the normal speed, speeding, or whatever, you are
obliged to move to the right lane to let the faster traffic pass. That
is stated pretty plainly. Even if you are going the same speed of the
vehicles in the right lane, you cannot block faster traffic in the left
lane. The law states that the operator of a moving vehicle "*shall*
drive in the *right* hand lane unless the operator is: (1)passing
another vehicle." Pretty plain, if you are in the left lane and going
the same speed as vehicles in the right, then you are not passing, so
you are obliged to move to the right.
I bet that if kimmygirl is in the left lane and approaches a slower
vehicle in that lane she certainly expects them to move over so she can
speed on her merry way.


You really *are* ignoring pertinent facts to this discussion. I've said
more than a couple/few times that if I come up behind someone who is going a
slower speed than me, I simply maintain the distance between us at a slower
speed. I leave in plenty of time to arrive at places I need to be; so I
don't need to act like an idiot behind someone else...

Maybe you drive the way I am describing...huh? Is that why you are having
such a problem? You're useless...never mind...

Kim W5TIT

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

"JJ" wrote in message

It should be obvious to the most casual of observers that if you are in
the left lane and other traffic is attempting to go faster than you are,
even if you are driving the normal speed, speeding, or whatever, you are
obliged to move to the right lane to let the faster traffic pass. That
is stated pretty plainly. Even if you are going the same speed of the
vehicles in the right lane, you cannot block faster traffic in the left
lane. The law states that the operator of a moving vehicle "*shall*
drive in the *right* hand lane unless the operator is: (1)passing
another vehicle." Pretty plain, if you are in the left lane and going
the same speed as vehicles in the right, then you are not passing, so
you are obliged to move to the right.
I bet that if kimmygirl is in the left lane and approaches a slower
vehicle in that lane she certainly expects them to move over so she can
speed on her merry way.


You are being deliberately obtuse. Kim repeatedly stated that she was
going
the same speed as the other cars in the lane that she was in not the lanes
to her right. She was going with the normal flow of traffic in the lane
she
was in. It should be obvious to the most casual observer that she was not
blocking traffic in the left lane as she was going at the speed of the
traffic in that lane. That ONE car tries to force her to move over does
not
constitute impeding the flow of traffic as the blockhead that is trying to
get her to move over will have to attempt the same maneuver with all the
other cars in the lane.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


Oh, they do!! They do. And, you describe it correctly, Dee. I am with the
flow of traffic in the speeders lane--those of us who are already (usually)
well above the speed limit. Then, some bozo will come up from behind,
barreling faster than we are, and want every single one of us to move as
he/she proceeds forward. As I have observed most other drivers also feel
the same way I do--becuase few if any move. The faster speeder usually ends
up moving to the right when they get a break, zooms up and squeezes into a
space the length of a Volkswagon, with a dooly four-door pickup truck!!!

The really funny part is, when they get closer to town? We all catch up,
usually toot and wave as we drive past because they've now gotten themselves
stuck over in the right hand lane... I know, it's not nice to gloat... but
it sure is satisfying!

Kim W5TIT

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

"JJ" wrote:

(snip) The law plainly states that if you are
in the left lane and not passing other traffic
you should be in the right lane. (snip)


It clearly doesn't say that, JJ. Instead, it says, "An operator of a
vehicle on a roadway moving more slowly than the normal speed of other
vehicles at the time and place under the existing conditions shall drive
in
the right-hand lane available for vehicles." In other words, the only time
one must absolutely be in the right lane of a multiple-lane highway is
when
moving more slowly than other vehicles. This clearly supports the idea
that
one must move to the right to let others pass, but it doesn't support your
premise that on must always drive in the right lane.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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


Your cornfusing (misspelled deliberately) him with facts, Dwight. :)

Kim W5TIT

Kim W5TIT wrote:

And, while I'm at it...since you're so obsessed with my tits, perhaps you
can't think clearly enough...

Lets see now, you pick that call sign and you think I am obsessed with
your breasts? Looks like you are more obsessed with them than anyone else.

"JJ" wrote in message
...
Kim W5TIT wrote:

And, while I'm at it...since you're so obsessed with my tits, perhaps
you
can't think clearly enough...

Lets see now, you pick that call sign and you think I am obsessed with
your breasts? Looks like you are more obsessed with them than anyone else.


Ummmm, well, yuh. You are right about that--I picked a *VANITY* callsign
that has everything to do with *VANITY*. However, my tits aren't a
distraction or obsession to me; they are a distraction to those who are too
simple minded to get passed them and carry on with some resemblance of real
dialogue--without the reference to tits all the time.

Try it, JJ, you may sound a lot more intelligent--but that's a stretch so
don't be disappointed... 'Course, if you want to keep referring to my tits,
I can keep referring to your dick...or lack thereof; you *are* demonstrating
the characteristics of a man with a little dick, or who is short. There's
absolutely nothing wrong with either, mind you, except usually in the man
who holds either or both titles. Maybe some counseling would help you.

Kim W5TIT

Kim W5TIT wrote:


Ummmm, well, yuh. You are right about that--I picked a *VANITY* callsign
that has everything to do with *VANITY*. However, my tits aren't a
distraction or obsession to me; they are a distraction to those who are too
simple minded to get passed them and carry on with some resemblance of real
dialogue--without the reference to tits all the time.

Try it, JJ, you may sound a lot more intelligent--but that's a stretch so
don't be disappointed... 'Course, if you want to keep referring to my tits,
I can keep referring to your dick...or lack thereof; you *are* demonstrating
the characteristics of a man with a little dick, or who is short. There's
absolutely nothing wrong with either, mind you, except usually in the man
who holds either or both titles. Maybe some counseling would help you.

Kim W5TIT


You certainly seem to be enamored with a certain part of my anatomy. At
least I didn't pick a tasteless callsign like W5DIK, I have more taste,
commone sense and class than that, something you obviously lack to a
great degree. You must be pretty simple minded yourself as your
tasteless callsign is a reference to and a reminder to everyone of your
tits every time you post.
You demonstrate the characteristics of a woman who must call attention
to herself constantly, probably short and dumpy. You would be a real hit
with the cb crowd.

In article , "Kim"
writes:

"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.

My point exactly.

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 ;)

Of course.

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.

That was my point.

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

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.

Which means *your* behavior is being rewarded....

However, I recommend the safer alternative. Let the "idiot" be ahead of you.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , "Kim"
writes:

"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.

But it appears to be the law.

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

Exactly. But the law seems to have a different take.


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.

Which puts everyone in the wrong. Ticketing opportunities galore.

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.

Then what kind of road are we talking about?

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!!!!!!!!!!!!

And that's the problem.

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.

Of course. The problem is that they're usually not in hurtling pieces of
machinery.

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.

How about simply doing what the law requires? I wait for the school bus to turn
off the lights and I only go the safe speed (15 max) in a school zone. I lose a
few seconds here and there - big deal.

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.

'Zactly.

The problem is that if you do the highway vigilante thing you may be the victim
of someone else's childish impulses. Or mistake. How many people died on Texas
highways last year?

Please don't be a statistic.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

N2EY wrote:
"Kim" wrote in message
...

"N2EY" wrote in message
...

In article , "Kim"
writes:


Sorry for the delay - thought I'd answered this, Kim


It's fine for them to go 20 mph above the speed limit. It's fine if they
want to go 30-40 mph above the speed limit. But, they won't find me
moving
out of their way; they'll have to go around because I am not moving into

a

lane where I have to slow down, or even get "stuck" there for a while, if
there happens to be more than one vehicle that wants to go past.

Ah, I see. The right lane is going 60-65, the left lane (with you in it by
yourself) is going 70-75, and you're not going to lose a few seconds in

order

to accomodate someone who wants to go 80-85.

It's not the matter of being kind and courteous and moving over so someone
who's acting like an idiot can go by. It's the principle of the matter
that
*because* of the way they are being self-important, it's going to be *them*
that does the moving around. I.E., I see them in kind of like the "bully"
role of a little kid. Well, I'm not giving in to the bully.


After some thought, it occurred to me to restate your posstion in
slightly different terms. How about this:

People tend to do what works for them. If a certain behavior produces
a desired result, they will tend to repeat and expand that behavior if
they want the result another time. This is a basic concept in child
rearing - you reward the behaviors you want and do not reward the
behaviors you don't want. And "reward" can take many forms - arguing
with a child from 7:30 to 7:35 about the fact that their bedtime is
7:30 is "rewarding" the arguing behavior because it results in a 7:35
bedtime.

And the effects go beyond the people directly involved. If another
child sees that arguing with a parent "works", then they're much more
likely to try arguing or some variation of it somewhere down the line.
Maybe the argument won't be about bedtime but the same tactics will be
used.

This doesn't mean the child has consciously figured all that out and
is working from a preconceived plan. It just means that the effects
are the same, and a parent has to take a different approach that
doesn't effectively reward the unwanted behavior. Good parents know
all this - again, sometimes not consciously.

Another important concept is to be consistent. The child needs to
learn not only that arguing over bedtime at bedtime doesn't work but
that it *never* works.

So in the case of the driver who "behaves like an idiot", Kim is being
very careful and consistent to *not* reward the "idiot" behavior by
pulling over and letting the person go by. Because if such behavior
works, we'll see more and more of it. Not just from the current batch
of idiots but from presently non-idiot drivers who see that it works
and try it themselves.

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

No, just the opposite. Kim is making sure that "acting like an idiot" doesn't
get the "idiot" what he-she wants (to pass and go faster).

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

Agreed! Or, more likely, an accident could result that is much more severe
because of the behavior of both Kim and the "idiot". For example, if someone
cut in front of Kim and she had to hit the brakes, a rearender is almost
guaranteed.

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

Sure it does. The question is whether it's legal and/or justified at 70+ mph in
the left lane. You, Dwight and JJ have convinced me that it's neither legal nor
justified.

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

Same here!

OTOH, if "behaving like an idiot" on the road is not rewarded, the
driver may try something else (like courtesy, or getting on the road a
few minutes earlier).

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

Even if it works, it's a dangerous game. Too dangerous.

73 de Jim, N2EY