There's much more than drunk drivers that need to be controlled

[donquijote1954]

There's much more than drunk drivers that need to be controlled. It's
the whole system that needs to be changed. The License to Kill given to
absolute beginners, the lack of lane discipline (passing on the right,
something unheard of in Europe), the reckless talk on the phone, the
driving of monster vehicles with raised bumpers that can kill above the
protection area of any other car, the insurance companies that fail to
make those guilty ones pay for every loss they cause, and so many other
areas in which the government and organizations such as Mothers Against
Drunk Drivers are totally indifferent.

In the meantime the jungle continues out there...

"It's No Accident: The Real Story Behind Senseless Death and Injury on
Our Roads"
by Lisa Lewis

Description:
For more than 30 years, the government has been ramming cars into walls
in an effort to make car crashes safe. The public has been conditioned
to believe that seatbelts, airbags and more "crashworthy" vehicles are
the best ways to protect us from harm on the roads. Meanwhile, the most
basic strategies to deter dangerous driving and prevent crashes have
been ignored. "It's No Accident" provides a rare glimpse into how the
government got seduced by the promise of "safe crashing." It then
examines the major factors involved in crashes today, including
speeding, aggressive driving, distractions (e.g. cell phones) and
drowsy driving. The author reveals that many dangerous behaviors are
now promoted by businesses, and that drivers who kill often walk away
with just a small fine. This expose is a must-read for anyone concerned
about what's happening on our roads and how to stop it.

Reviews:
Interesting ...
2 Dec 2005 (updated 15 Dec 2005)
by John
This book is a very nuanced discussion of the problems of road safety.
The author challenges the government, the insurance industry, the auto
industry, the media, the motorists, and even Mothers Against Drunk
Driving to defend the outrageous and immoral behavior that we're seeing
on the roads today -- and the degree to which they are contributing to
it. It is a no-holds barred expose that reveals the hard truths about
behaviors and policies that put innocent people at risk on the roads.

Right on Target [ No Rating ] 10 Jan 2006
by falconer
I ordered three books from the vendor and
requested that my order be mailed by federal express (it was a cost of
$14.00). They indicated that I would receive the books on the following
Tuesday and I did. I was pleased with the service. I would like to
compliment you for a book that is well written. I have not looked at
car safety as much from the crash prevention but from crash mitigation.
You are so on target. The book needs to be read by many, I am trying to
encourage everyone I know to read it. I have about
twenty pages left. I can feel your frustration....... and I really
agreed at how you look at MADD it is not only drinking but it is
speed,following too close and of course those cell phones users. I will
be sending your organization more money by the end of the week ( I made
a pledge of 50.00)./ MADD should listen to all of the accidents
included fatal ones that happen everyday in the morning as people are
going to work.........

http://www.lulu.com/content/186268

WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE
http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote

BIKE FOR PEACE
http://webspawner.com/users/bikeforpeace

[BE]

That's right, what passes for safety these days is nothing more than
accident survival.

The emphisis needs to return to accident prevention and the enforcement of
lane integrity laws.

[Jim Higson]

donquijote1954 wrote:

> (passing on the right, something unheard of in Europe)

Funny, I thought the UK was in Europe.

--
Jim

[PeterD]

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 16:19:25 -0400, "BE" > wrote:

>That's right, what passes for safety these days is nothing more than
>accident survival.
>
>The emphisis needs to return to accident prevention and the enforcement of
>lane integrity laws.
>

ANd we can put that emphisis on just AFTER we get rid of the SPAMMERs
such as the original poster who is just flogging his books.

[Dave Head]

On 28 Sep 2006 13:09:31 -0700, "donquijote1954" >
wrote:

>There's much more than drunk drivers that need to be controlled. It's
>the whole system that needs to be changed. The License to Kill given to
>absolute beginners, the lack of lane discipline (passing on the right,
>something unheard of in Europe),

There

is

nothing

wrong

with

passing

on

the

right.

Period.

I wish to hell people would stop coming up with this stuff. What Europe does
is non-relavent in the USA. This silly law was repealed 30+ years ago here
when we began building our interstates with left exits, among other things that
included everyone being infuriated at someone in the left lane doing the SL -
10 mph and then getting a ticket for passing the SOB.

Dave Head

[Nate Nagel]

Dave Head wrote:
> On 28 Sep 2006 13:09:31 -0700, "donquijote1954" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>There's much more than drunk drivers that need to be controlled. It's
>>the whole system that needs to be changed. The License to Kill given to
>>absolute beginners, the lack of lane discipline (passing on the right,
>>something unheard of in Europe),
>
>
> There
>
> is
>
> nothing
>
> wrong
>
> with
>
> passing
>
> on
>
> the
>
> right.
>
> Period.

Sure there is. In an environment where people are used to others
driving correctly (i.e. not the USA,) they're not expecting to be passed
on the right. Doing something that other drivers don't expect increases
risk, however slightly.

>
> I wish to hell people would stop coming up with this stuff. What Europe does
> is non-relavent in the USA. This silly law was repealed 30+ years ago here
> when we began building our interstates with left exits, among other things that
> included everyone being infuriated at someone in the left lane doing the SL -
> 10 mph and then getting a ticket for passing the SOB.
>
> Dave Head

The correct solution is to not have left exits and to enforce lane
discipline laws, and then this discussion will be irrelevant.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

[[email protected]]

Dave Head wrote:
> On 28 Sep 2006 13:09:31 -0700, "donquijote1954" >
> wrote:
>
> >There's much more than drunk drivers that need to be controlled. It's
> >the whole system that needs to be changed. The License to Kill given to
> >absolute beginners, the lack of lane discipline (passing on the right,
> >something unheard of in Europe),
>
> There
>
> is
>
> nothing
>
> wrong
>
> with
>
> passing
>
> on
>
> the
>
> right.
>
> Period.
>
>Most highways in North America have signs that say "Slower traffic keep right" seems to inidicate that we should pass on the Left.
Bg

[n5hsr]

"Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
...
> Dave Head wrote:
>> On 28 Sep 2006 13:09:31 -0700, "donquijote1954"
>> >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>There's much more than drunk drivers that need to be controlled. It's
>>>the whole system that needs to be changed. The License to Kill given to
>>>absolute beginners, the lack of lane discipline (passing on the right,
>>>something unheard of in Europe),
>>
>>
>> There is
>>
>> nothing
>>
>> wrong
>>
>> with
>>
>> passing
>>
>> on
>>
>> the right.
>>
>> Period.
>
> Sure there is. In an environment where people are used to others driving
> correctly (i.e. not the USA,) they're not expecting to be passed on the
> right. Doing something that other drivers don't expect increases risk,
> however slightly.
>
>>
>> I wish to hell people would stop coming up with this stuff. What Europe
>> does
>> is non-relavent in the USA. This silly law was repealed 30+ years ago
>> here
>> when we began building our interstates with left exits, among other
>> things that
>> included everyone being infuriated at someone in the left lane doing the
>> SL -
>> 10 mph and then getting a ticket for passing the SOB. Dave Head
>
> The correct solution is to not have left exits and to enforce lane
> discipline laws, and then this discussion will be irrelevant.
>
> nate
>
> --
> replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
> http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Go drive down the Eisenhower I-290 between 1st and Austin and tell me that
again.

I don't have to. I've done it many times. I've got off at both Austin and
Harlem and also got ON at both streets, and they are both off and ON on the
left. And as far as I know, we still drive on the Right side of the road
here.

Charles of Schaumburg.

[Old Wolf]

donquijote1954 wrote:
> There's much more than drunk drivers that need to be controlled. It's
> the whole system that needs to be changed. The License to Kill given to
> absolute beginners, the lack of lane discipline (passing on the right,
> something unheard of in Europe)

Call-sign of the LLB: criticism of "passing on the right".

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

n5hsr wrote:
> "Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Dave Head wrote:
> >> On 28 Sep 2006 13:09:31 -0700, "donquijote1954"
> >> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>There's much more than drunk drivers that need to be controlled. It's
> >>>the whole system that needs to be changed. The License to Kill given to
> >>>absolute beginners, the lack of lane discipline (passing on the right,
> >>>something unheard of in Europe),
> >>
> >>
> >> There is
> >>
> >> nothing
> >>
> >> wrong
> >>
> >> with
> >>
> >> passing
> >>
> >> on
> >>
> >> the right.
> >>
> >> Period.
> >
> > Sure there is. In an environment where people are used to others driving
> > correctly (i.e. not the USA,) they're not expecting to be passed on the
> > right. Doing something that other drivers don't expect increases risk,
> > however slightly.
> >
> >>
> >> I wish to hell people would stop coming up with this stuff. What Europe
> >> does
> >> is non-relavent in the USA. This silly law was repealed 30+ years ago
> >> here
> >> when we began building our interstates with left exits, among other
> >> things that
> >> included everyone being infuriated at someone in the left lane doing the
> >> SL -
> >> 10 mph and then getting a ticket for passing the SOB. Dave Head
> >
> > The correct solution is to not have left exits and to enforce lane
> > discipline laws, and then this discussion will be irrelevant.
> >
> > nate
> >
> > --
> > replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
> > http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
>
> Go drive down the Eisenhower I-290 between 1st and Austin and tell me that
> again.
>
> I don't have to. I've done it many times. I've got off at both Austin and
> Harlem and also got ON at both streets, and they are both off and ON on the
> left. And as far as I know, we still drive on the Right side of the road
> here.

Whoever designed the Ike/Harlem [1] interchange should be committed.
Entering the Ike when the traffic is heavy but moving fast (daytime,
off rush hour) is a gamble - put your foot down and hope there is an
opening in traffic before the merging lane ends.

[1]
<http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.aspx?T=4&S=10&Z=16&X=2166&Y=23180&W=2&qs=harlem%7criver+forest%7cil%7c&Addr=N+Harlem+Ave%2c+River+Forest%2c+IL+60305&ALon=-87.8055720&ALat=41.9034257>.

--
Tom "Ex FIB" Sherman - Here, not there.

[P.Roehling]

"Nate Nagel" > wrote

> The correct solution is to not have left exits and to enforce lane
> discipline laws, and then this discussion will be irrelevant.

Gee, if only the world were perfect...but it isn't, and never will be; which
means that such arguments will remain relevant for the foreseeable
future...or until whenever humanity becomes extinct.

[Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS]

On 28 Sep 2006 13:09:31 -0700, "donquijote1954"
> wrote:


>
>Description:
>For more than 30 years, the government has been ramming cars into walls
>in an effort to make car crashes safe. The public has been conditioned
>to believe that seatbelts, airbags and more "crashworthy" vehicles are
>the best ways to protect us from harm on the roads. Meanwhile, the most
>basic strategies to deter dangerous driving and prevent crashes have
>been ignored. "It's No Accident" provides a rare glimpse into how the
>government got seduced by the promise of "safe crashing." It then
>examines the major factors involved in crashes today, including
>speeding, aggressive driving, distractions (e.g. cell phones) and
>drowsy driving. The author reveals that many dangerous behaviors are
>now promoted by businesses, and that drivers who kill often walk away
>with just a small fine. This expose is a must-read for anyone concerned
>about what's happening on our roads and how to stop it.
>

Yes indeed, the automotive industy encourages reckless driving because
they make a fortune off replacing all the cars totalled in crashes
every year. And the media is paid to go along with it by carrying all
these sick commercials that glorify speeding and by referring to all
crashes as accidents.

The highway murder problem is the biggest crime problem in america and
the most correctable Stop coddling these deadly speeders and DUIs and
phone-drivers.

[Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS]

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 16:19:25 -0400, "BE" > wrote:

>That's right, what passes for safety these days is nothing more than
>accident survival.
>
>The emphisis needs to return to accident prevention and the enforcement of
>lane integrity laws.
>

Lane integrity laws.?? HAHAHA. What about the deadly speeders and
drunk drivers, you nitwit??

[Nate Nagel]

P.Roehling wrote:
> "Nate Nagel" > wrote
>
>
>>The correct solution is to not have left exits and to enforce lane
>>discipline laws, and then this discussion will be irrelevant.
>
>
> Gee, if only the world were perfect...but it isn't, and never will be; which
> means that such arguments will remain relevant for the foreseeable
> future...or until whenever humanity becomes extinct.
>
>

you make it sound like I'm suggesting something outlandish; I'm not.
Currently the DC beltway is having several interchanges rebuilt and
I believe that the long term plan is to eliminate left exits. So at
least some highway engineers and urban planners agree with me. My other
suggestion was to enforce an existing law. What's so radical about that?

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

[n5hsr]

"Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" > wrote in
message ...
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 16:19:25 -0400, "BE" > wrote:
>
>>That's right, what passes for safety these days is nothing more than
>>accident survival.
>>
>>The emphisis needs to return to accident prevention and the enforcement of
>>lane integrity laws.
>>
>
> Lane integrity laws.?? HAHAHA. What about the deadly speeders and
> drunk drivers, you nitwit??
>

Yeah. Here in Illinois, you're supposed to use a signal when changing
lanes. That's been a law since 1965 and they still don't do it on average
up here.

Or the law about turning your lights on when using your wipers. That's been
a law since 1990.

Or the law about doing more than 20 over the limit is a felony. If that's
so, then 99.999% of the drivers on the TriState Tollway are felons, because
the average speed most of the time is nearer 80 than 55. I've seen some
days when it hit closer to 90, and even the right lane is going 75-80.

Charles of Schaumburg

[Kristian M Zoerhoff]

In article >,
says...
> Go drive down the Eisenhower I-290 between 1st and Austin and tell me that
> again.
>
> I don't have to. I've done it many times. I've got off at both Austin and
> Harlem and also got ON at both streets, and they are both off and ON on the
> left. And as far as I know, we still drive on the Right side of the road
> here.

There's a lot of history behind those left-hand exits, and IDOT would really
like to make them go away.

But why is this is rec.BICYCLES.misc? r.b.soc, maybe, but only if we start
discussing whether bikes should be allowed on the Ike (CM's little stunt a few
years back should provide fodder).

--

__o Kristian Zoerhoff
_'\(,_
(_)/ (_)

[Tim Kreitz]

Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
> Lane integrity laws.??

That's right.

You see, enforcing lane discipline and eliminating tailgating in the
States would demonstrate that highway speed limits are largely
unneccesary -- but the cops and politicians don't want that. After all,
safer highways mean less revenue for the government. Instead, they
allow unskilled nincompoops in 6,000-pound SUVs to drive like the
inattentive morons they are, nabbing them in droves for going 5-over at
$150 a pop. Easy money.

Any number of studies and stats can be googled that show how in areas
where highway speed limits are higher, per-capita fatalities are LOWER.
Germany, Italy, and (until recently) Montana are all good examples,
just for starters.

Tim Kreitz
2003 ZX7R
2000 ZX6R
http://www.timkreitz.com

[AustinMN]

Kristian M Zoerhoff wrote:
> But why is this is rec.BICYCLES.misc? r.b.soc, maybe, but only if we start
> discussing whether bikes should be allowed on the Ike (CM's little stunt a few
> years back should provide fodder).

It's only in r.b.m because the OP was spamming his book.

Austin

[PeterD]

On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 06:13:39 GMT, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are
MURDERERS > wrote:
>Stop coddling these deadly speeders and DUIs and phone-drivers.

Yea, and make stepping on the brakes in the merge lanes a felony. You
can't merge on a highway with your foot on the brake!

[Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS]

On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 04:22:51 -0500, "n5hsr" > wrote:


>
>Or the law about doing more than 20 over the limit is a felony. If that's
>so, then 99.999% of the drivers on the TriState Tollway are felons, because
>the average speed most of the time is nearer 80 than 55. I've seen some
>days when it hit closer to 90, and even the right lane is going 75-80.
>
>Charles of Schaumburg
>

I don't believe there is any such law, though i'd love to see it. You
got a link?

[Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS]

On 29 Sep 2006 06:48:10 -0700, "Tim Kreitz" >
wrote:


>
>Any number of studies and stats can be googled that show how in areas
>where highway speed limits are higher, per-capita fatalities are LOWER.
>Germany, Italy, and (until recently) Montana are all good examples,
>just for starters.
>

HAHAHAHA. Don't start in with that nonsense again. The issue was
settled back in 1974 when america went to the 55 and immediately
highway deaths plumetted.

[Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS]

On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 10:46:22 -0400, PeterD > wrote:

>On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 06:13:39 GMT, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are
>MURDERERS > wrote:
>>Stop coddling these deadly speeders and DUIs and phone-drivers.
>
>Yea, and make stepping on the brakes in the merge lanes a felony. You
>can't merge on a highway with your foot on the brake!

Are you serious??. Sometimes you have to slow down to merge. That's
the stupidest idea i ever heard.

[[email protected]]

Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 16:19:25 -0400, "BE" > wrote:
>
> >That's right, what passes for safety these days is nothing more than
> >accident survival.
> >
> >The emphisis needs to return to accident prevention and the enforcement of
> >lane integrity laws.
> >
>
> Lane integrity laws.?? HAHAHA. What about the deadly speeders and
> drunk drivers, you nitwit??

Speeding isn't necessarily dangerous - inattentive driving is. Speed
makes the consequences of an accident worse, but it rarely causes
accidents. Cops could prevent many more accidents if they stopped
targeting speeders and started giving tickets to people who change
lanes without signaling, drive in the left lane and don't move over for
traffic behind them, prevent others from mergin in front of them, eat
and drink while driving, talk on the phone, fiddle with the radio,
etc., etc.

Of course this is much harder than sitting in a speed trap with the
radar gun, and would bring in less ticket revenue.

-Gniewko

[[email protected]]

Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
> On 29 Sep 2006 06:48:10 -0700, "Tim Kreitz" >
> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Any number of studies and stats can be googled that show how in areas
> >where highway speed limits are higher, per-capita fatalities are LOWER.
> >Germany, Italy, and (until recently) Montana are all good examples,
> >just for starters.
> >
>
> HAHAHAHA. Don't start in with that nonsense again. The issue was
> settled back in 1974 when america went to the 55 and immediately
> highway deaths plumetted.

Heh. Drive a modern car at 75, and drive an early 70s car at 75. If
highway deaths decreased with the speed limit lowered to 55, that's
because old cars couldn't handle a faster speed. Modern cars can.

Tim is absolutely right. Pretty much anywhere speed limits were
increased, the accident rates dropped or at worst remained the same.
There was a case like this recently, where the speed limit was
increased on a stretch of highway in Texas.

Speed limits that are too low make drivers bored and inattentive, which
makes them more dangerous.

-Gniewko

[[email protected]]

Dave Head wrote:
> On 28 Sep 2006 13:09:31 -0700, "donquijote1954" >
> wrote:
>
> >There's much more than drunk drivers that need to be controlled. It's
> >the whole system that needs to be changed. The License to Kill given to
> >absolute beginners, the lack of lane discipline (passing on the right,
> >something unheard of in Europe),
>
> There
>
> is
>
> nothing
>
> wrong
>
> with
>
> passing
>
> on
>
> the
>
> right.
>
> Period.

Yes, there is A LOT wrong with it.

1. If you know that nobody will pass on the right, you can safely
change to the right lane with a quick check that there is nobody next
to you, because you know that there isn't anybody coming up faster from
behind. This halves the number of lane-change accidents right there,
because no such accident will happen in a lane change to the right.

2. You also know that traffic to the left is always faster, so people
will take more care changing lanes to the left.

3. Lane discipline makes traffic flow much better. If you're driving
fast, you can just stay in the left lane, and people will move right
out of your way (which they can do easily and safely because of point
1). The fast driver doesn't have to weave in and out of traffic, which
is another way that accidents are reduced.

4. Lane discipline makes traffic MUCH more predictable, which reduces
accidents. At any point it's much easier to predict what any given car
will or won't do. Again, this is much safer.

Lane discipline and the "no passing on the right" rule makes roads much
safer. There is absolutely no doubt about it. And to address your
problem with people having to pass a slow driver in the left lane -
that's an issue of enforcement and driver education. In most places in
Europe, the slow driver would quickly move out of the way, and if he
didn't, he would be the one that gets the ticket.

-Gniewko

[Turby]

On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 15:55:14 GMT, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are
MURDERERS > wrote:
>On 29 Sep 2006 06:48:10 -0700, "Tim Kreitz" >
>wrote:
>
>>Any number of studies and stats can be googled that show how in areas
>>where highway speed limits are higher, per-capita fatalities are LOWER.
>>Germany, Italy, and (until recently) Montana are all good examples,
>>just for starters.
>>
>
>HAHAHAHA. Don't start in with that nonsense again. The issue was
>settled back in 1974 when america went to the 55 and immediately
>highway deaths plumetted.

The safest roads in America are Insterstate highways - they are also
the roads with the highest average speeds.

--
Turby the Turbosurfer

[Dave Head]

On 29 Sep 2006 11:07:55 -0700, wrote:

>Dave Head wrote:
>> On 28 Sep 2006 13:09:31 -0700, "donquijote1954" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >There's much more than drunk drivers that need to be controlled. It's
>> >the whole system that needs to be changed. The License to Kill given to
>> >absolute beginners, the lack of lane discipline (passing on the right,
>> >something unheard of in Europe),
>>
>> There
>>
>> is
>>
>> nothing
>>
>> wrong
>>
>> with
>>
>> passing
>>
>> on
>>
>> the
>>
>> right.
>>
>> Period.
>
>Yes, there is A LOT wrong with it.
>
>1. If you know that nobody will pass on the right, you can safely
>change to the right lane with a quick check that there is nobody next
>to you,

You never know that, and such a paradigm is absolutely no excuse for not
looking what is beside and behind your vehicle, no matter what. Could be a cop
on a high speed run. Etc.


>because you know that there isn't anybody coming up faster from
>behind. This halves the number of lane-change accidents right there,
>because no such accident will happen in a lane change to the right.

It sure will if people go to not looking thoroughly before the change lanes to
the right.

>
>2. You also know that traffic to the left is always faster, so people
>will take more care changing lanes to the left.

Never going to happen with the 1) left exits in this country and 2) the drivers
in this country.

>3. Lane discipline makes traffic flow much better.

It might... if we could get away with it here. But it was tried, it didn't
work, and the law was repealed. It as much a dead horse as one can get.

>If you're driving
>fast, you can just stay in the left lane, and people will move right
>out of your way (which they can do easily and safely because of point
>1). The fast driver doesn't have to weave in and out of traffic, which
>is another way that accidents are reduced.

Ideal world. It'd be great. It'll never happen.

>4. Lane discipline makes traffic MUCH more predictable, which reduces
>accidents. At any point it's much easier to predict what any given car
>will or won't do. Again, this is much safer.

And, as long as we have severely underposted speed limits, with people going
fast on the right and using people in the left lane to block the radar signals
from cops crusing the other way in the left lane... it'll still never happen.
Get some sane speed limits... maybe we'd have a change at KRETP.

>Lane discipline and the "no passing on the right" rule makes roads much
>safer.

They would, if you didn't have 18 wheelers in the left lane climbing hills at
23 mph, passing other 18 wheelers that are climibing the same hill at 17 mph in
the right lane. The beat goes on. Hell will freeze over before KRETP is
practical in this country for a whole load of reasons.

>There is absolutely no doubt about it. And to address your
>problem with people having to pass a slow driver in the left lane -
>that's an issue of enforcement and driver education. In most places in
>Europe, the slow driver would quickly move out of the way, and if he
>didn't, he would be the one that gets the ticket.

European experience is non-applicable to this country. All the theoretical
stuff sounds great, but it ain't reality here, so, in the meantime, there's
absolutely nothing wrong with passing on the right. Period.

Dave Head

>
>-Gniewko

[Bill Brabender]

"Dave Head" > wrote in message
...
> On 28 Sep 2006 13:09:31 -0700, "donquijote1954"
> >
> wrote:
>
>>There's much more than drunk drivers that need to be controlled. It's
>>the whole system that needs to be changed. The License to Kill given to
>>absolute beginners, the lack of lane discipline (passing on the right,
>>something unheard of in Europe),
>
> There
>
> is
>
> nothing
>
> wrong
>
> with
>
> passing
>
> on
>
> the
>
> right.
>
> Period.
>
> I wish to hell people would stop coming up with this stuff. What Europe
> does
> is non-relavent in the USA. This silly law was repealed 30+ years ago
> here
> when we began building our interstates with left exits, among other things
> that
> included everyone being infuriated at someone in the left lane doing the
> SL -
> 10 mph and then getting a ticket for passing the SOB.
>
> Dave Head

There's a reason they call it "undertaking" in the UK and it is still
illegal there IIRC

Allowing for differences of left and right hand drive:-)

[Tomes]

"Dave Head" > wrote in message
...
> On 28 Sep 2006 13:09:31 -0700, "donquijote1954"
> >
> wrote:
>
<snip> ....... the lack of lane discipline (passing on the right,
>>something unheard of in Europe),
>
> There is nothing wrong with passing on the right. Period.
>
> I wish to hell people would stop coming up with this stuff. What Europe
> does
> is non-relavent in the USA. This silly law was repealed 30+ years ago
> here
> when we began building our interstates with left exits, among other things
> that
> included everyone being infuriated at someone in the left lane doing the
> SL -
> 10 mph and then getting a ticket for passing the SOB.
>
> Dave Head

In New Jersey USA it is actually illegal to pass on the right except on a
multi-lane road when the passee is making a left turn. If you do it on a
freeway (or even on a 2 lane road when the vehicle in front is making a
left) it is specifically illegal and people do get tickets for it.
Tomes

[dizzy]

Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:

>Lane integrity laws.?? HAHAHA. What about the deadly speeders and
>drunk drivers, you nitwit??

Plonk!

[Dave Head]

On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 18:42:22 -0400, "Bill Brabender" >
wrote:

>
>"Dave Head" > wrote in message
...
>> On 28 Sep 2006 13:09:31 -0700, "donquijote1954"
>> >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>There's much more than drunk drivers that need to be controlled. It's
>>>the whole system that needs to be changed. The License to Kill given to
>>>absolute beginners, the lack of lane discipline (passing on the right,
>>>something unheard of in Europe),
>>
>> There
>>
>> is
>>
>> nothing
>>
>> wrong
>>
>> with
>>
>> passing
>>
>> on
>>
>> the
>>
>> right.
>>
>> Period.
>>
>> I wish to hell people would stop coming up with this stuff. What Europe
>> does
>> is non-relavent in the USA. This silly law was repealed 30+ years ago
>> here
>> when we began building our interstates with left exits, among other things
>> that
>> included everyone being infuriated at someone in the left lane doing the
>> SL -
>> 10 mph and then getting a ticket for passing the SOB.
>>
>> Dave Head
>
>There's a reason they call it "undertaking" in the UK and it is still
>illegal there IIRC
>
>Allowing for differences of left and right hand drive:-)

Fine, but _we_ aren't in the UK, and there is no more danger in passing on the
right here than there is in passing on the left here.

Dave Head
>
>

[Dave Head]

On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 22:45:32 GMT, "Tomes" > wrote:

>
>"Dave Head" > wrote in message
...
>> On 28 Sep 2006 13:09:31 -0700, "donquijote1954"
>> >
>> wrote:
>>
><snip> ....... the lack of lane discipline (passing on the right,
>>>something unheard of in Europe),
>>
>> There is nothing wrong with passing on the right. Period.
>>
>> I wish to hell people would stop coming up with this stuff. What Europe
>> does
>> is non-relavent in the USA. This silly law was repealed 30+ years ago
>> here
>> when we began building our interstates with left exits, among other things
>> that
>> included everyone being infuriated at someone in the left lane doing the
>> SL -
>> 10 mph and then getting a ticket for passing the SOB.
>>
>> Dave Head
>
>In New Jersey USA it is actually illegal to pass on the right except on a
>multi-lane road when the passee is making a left turn. If you do it on a
>freeway (or even on a 2 lane road when the vehicle in front is making a
>left) it is specifically illegal and people do get tickets for it.
>Tomes

New Jersey is a famous nanny state that is going to protect absolutely
everybody from absolutely everything, or so they think. Or, this may be more
about making money via tickets. But in the vast majority of the remainder of
the USA, including famously-speed-conscious Ohio, its still legal to pass on
the right. Has been for 30+ years.

Dave Head

>
>

[Bob]

n5hsr wrote:
>
> Or the law about doing more than 20 over the limit is a felony. If that's
> so, then 99.999% of the drivers on the TriState Tollway are felons, because
> the average speed most of the time is nearer 80 than 55. I've seen some
> days when it hit closer to 90, and even the right lane is going 75-80.
>
> Charles of Schaumburg

If such an Illinois law existed you could be closer to being right than
wrong. Unfortunately for your hyperbole however, there is no such law.
I can only guess that you are referring to the "fleeing to elude
police" statute in which case you should stop quoting the law until you
actually *read* it.

Try- http://www.law.cornell.edu/states/illinois

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[n5hsr]

"Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" > wrote in
message ...
> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 04:22:51 -0500, "n5hsr" > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Or the law about doing more than 20 over the limit is a felony. If that's
>>so, then 99.999% of the drivers on the TriState Tollway are felons,
>>because
>>the average speed most of the time is nearer 80 than 55. I've seen some
>>days when it hit closer to 90, and even the right lane is going 75-80.
>>
>>Charles of Schaumburg
>>
>
> I don't believe there is any such law, though i'd love to see it. You
> got a link?
>

No, I got that one straight from a State Policeman that is a friend of mine.
No, he wasn't writing me a ticket. . . . .

Charles of Schaumburg

[n5hsr]

"Bob" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> n5hsr wrote:
>>
>> Or the law about doing more than 20 over the limit is a felony. If
>> that's
>> so, then 99.999% of the drivers on the TriState Tollway are felons,
>> because
>> the average speed most of the time is nearer 80 than 55. I've seen some
>> days when it hit closer to 90, and even the right lane is going 75-80.
>>
>> Charles of Schaumburg
>
> If such an Illinois law existed you could be closer to being right than
> wrong. Unfortunately for your hyperbole however, there is no such law.
> I can only guess that you are referring to the "fleeing to elude
> police" statute in which case you should stop quoting the law until you
> actually *read* it.
>
> Try- http://www.law.cornell.edu/states/illinois
>
> Regards,
> Bob Hunt
>

1. Page doesn't link.

2. I have a friend who just happens to be a State Policeman who told me
about it. Either he's lying to me (very doubtful) or he was lied to by his
superiors.

Charles of Schaumburg

[n5hsr]

"Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" > wrote in
message ...
> On 29 Sep 2006 06:48:10 -0700, "Tim Kreitz" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Any number of studies and stats can be googled that show how in areas
>>where highway speed limits are higher, per-capita fatalities are LOWER.
>>Germany, Italy, and (until recently) Montana are all good examples,
>>just for starters.
>>
>
> HAHAHAHA. Don't start in with that nonsense again. The issue was
> settled back in 1974 when america went to the 55 and immediately
> highway deaths plumetted.

But cars are actually much better now than the Detroit Land Yachts most were
driving in 1974. My Corolla from back then could get up to 70. Anything
over that and I'd start shaking parts off. My current Corolla's been up to
95, and it has over 226,000 miles on it, and regularly does 70 with no
strain at all. As a matter of fact if I'm only doing 70, I'm way over in
the slow lane on most tollways now, and someone's riding up my bumper. And
it didn't really save that much gas. And those ridiculous 87 MPH
speedometers. If I wanted a moped, I'd buy one. I buried the needle going
downhill once. American cars may get their best mileage at 35, but the
newer Japanese cars actually are geared to do better at 65-70.

And if you check the accident rates, on the Autobahn with its higher speed,
it's still lower than our 65 MPH Interstates. And they can go 200 MPH
legally on the Autobahn. They have Porches and Mercedes and Ferrarris over
there. And a slower traffic keep right rule.

Charles of Schaumburg

[Dane Buson]

Turby > wrote:
> > wrote:
>> "Tim Kreitz" > >>wrote:
>>
>>>Any number of studies and stats can be googled that show how in areas
>>>where highway speed limits are higher, per-capita fatalities are LOWER.
>>>Germany, Italy, and (until recently) Montana are all good examples,
>>>just for starters.
>>
>>HAHAHAHA. Don't start in with that nonsense again. The issue was
>>settled back in 1974 when america went to the 55 and immediately
>>highway deaths plumetted.
>
> The safest roads in America are Insterstate highways - they are also
> the roads with the highest average speeds.

I think it has rather more to do with the fact that Interstate highways
have the lowest number of intersections of any typing of driving one
does. People infrequently have accidents when they're all going
approximately at the same speed going in the same direction. It's when
you have intersections, driveways, crosswalks and similar breaks in the
road that things get complicated.

I noticed the original poster (DQ) added some new groups to his latest
troll. It actually appears to be one of his more subtle trolls. The
drunk driving angle is perhaps one of the better hooks he's employed.
Still, I think he should work on adding more contention to the subject.
Good try though.

--
Dane Buson -
To accuse others for one's own misfortunes is a sign of want of education. To
accuse oneself shows that one's education has begun. To accuse neither oneself
nor others shows that one's education is complete. -- Epictetus

[PeterD]

On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 15:56:17 GMT, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are
MURDERERS > wrote:

>On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 10:46:22 -0400, PeterD > wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 06:13:39 GMT, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are
>>MURDERERS > wrote:
>>>Stop coddling these deadly speeders and DUIs and phone-drivers.
>>
>>Yea, and make stepping on the brakes in the merge lanes a felony. You
>>can't merge on a highway with your foot on the brake!
>
>Are you serious??. Sometimes you have to slow down to merge. That's
>the stupidest idea i ever heard.

Repeat after me: you cannot merge on the highway with your foot on the
brake. You have to be going the same speed, (or slightly faster) to
merge, if you slow down, (and then eventually stop) you can't merge.

Then you are stuck at the end of the merge lane, stopped, (or almost
stopped) traffic either wizzing past you at speed (as they should) or
slamming on their brakes (and causing accidents; sorry, that's YOU
causing accidents) to try to be nice and let you in.

I see you are one of those idiots who gets to the merge, at *half* the
speed of the others, twists their head all the way around, puts their
foot on the brakes and then thinks "Damn, it's so hard to merge on
highways".

[Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS]

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 09:11:44 -0400, PeterD > wrote:

>On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 15:56:17 GMT, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are
>MURDERERS > wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 10:46:22 -0400, PeterD > wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 06:13:39 GMT, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are
>>>MURDERERS > wrote:
>>>>Stop coddling these deadly speeders and DUIs and phone-drivers.
>>>
>>>Yea, and make stepping on the brakes in the merge lanes a felony. You
>>>can't merge on a highway with your foot on the brake!
>>
>>Are you serious??. Sometimes you have to slow down to merge. That's
>>the stupidest idea i ever heard.
>
>Repeat after me: you cannot merge on the highway with your foot on the
>brake. You have to be going the same speed, (or slightly faster) to
>merge, if you slow down, (and then eventually stop) you can't merge.
>

But the lane you're merging into often has vehicles going assorted
speeds. THINK

[morticide]

Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
> On 29 Sep 2006 06:48:10 -0700, "Tim Kreitz" >
> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Any number of studies and stats can be googled that show how in areas
> >where highway speed limits are higher, per-capita fatalities are LOWER.
> >Germany, Italy, and (until recently) Montana are all good examples,
> >just for starters.
> >
>
> HAHAHAHA. Don't start in with that nonsense again. The issue was
> settled back in 1974 when america went to the 55 and immediately
> highway deaths plumetted.

In 1974 the Interstate highway system was still being built and was not
completed until the late 1980s (I-95 in NJ Still incomplete!). 55-60
is about right on 2-lane roads.

Mmmmm'ever hear of highway hypnosis? That's a phenomenon commonly
mentioned back in Federal 55 relating to long drives down the
Interstate at 55. Its stats may have contributed to the later Federal
65. Check out ALL the facts...and see the benefits.

[Turby]

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 05:10:12 -0700, Dane Buson >
wrote:

>Turby > wrote:
>> > wrote:
>>> "Tim Kreitz" > >>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Any number of studies and stats can be googled that show how in areas
>>>>where highway speed limits are higher, per-capita fatalities are LOWER.
>>>>Germany, Italy, and (until recently) Montana are all good examples,
>>>>just for starters.
>>>
>>>HAHAHAHA. Don't start in with that nonsense again. The issue was
>>>settled back in 1974 when america went to the 55 and immediately
>>>highway deaths plumetted.
>>
>> The safest roads in America are Insterstate highways - they are also
>> the roads with the highest average speeds.
>
>I think it has rather more to do with the fact that Interstate highways
>have the lowest number of intersections of any typing of driving one
>does.

Of course, but the bottom line is that _speed_ is not the prime factor
in safety.

--
Turby the Turbosurfer

[donquijote1954]

BE wrote:
> That's right, what passes for safety these days is nothing more than
> accident survival.
>
> The emphisis needs to return to accident prevention and the enforcement of
> lane integrity laws.

Maybe it ought to be included in Homeland Security if we want to see
anything happening in the near future. As a matter of fact, zigzaging
SUVs with drivers glued to their phone amount to terrorism.

[donquijote1954]

Jim Higson wrote:
> donquijote1954 wrote:
>
> > (passing on the right, something unheard of in Europe)
>
> Funny, I thought the UK was in Europe.
>

Not anymore. Now it's the 51st state.

[donquijote1954]

PeterD wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 16:19:25 -0400, "BE" > wrote:
>
> >That's right, what passes for safety these days is nothing more than
> >accident survival.
> >
> >The emphisis needs to return to accident prevention and the enforcement of
> >lane integrity laws.
> >
>
> ANd we can put that emphisis on just AFTER we get rid of the SPAMMERs
> such as the original poster who is just flogging his books.

Sure. If you even deny there's a problem, can you ever fix it?

I think you are related to the ostrich.

[donquijote1954]

P.Roehling wrote:
> "Nate Nagel" > wrote
>
> > The correct solution is to not have left exits and to enforce lane
> > discipline laws, and then this discussion will be irrelevant.
>
> Gee, if only the world were perfect...but it isn't, and never will be; which
> means that such arguments will remain relevant for the foreseeable
> future...or until whenever humanity becomes extinct.

It ain't so much about dying in one or another anonymous accident, but
about being terrorized. Some call it "road terrorism."

[donquijote1954]

donquijote1954 wrote:
> There's much more than drunk drivers that need to be controlled. It's
> the whole system that needs to be changed. The License to Kill given to
> absolute beginners, the lack of lane discipline (passing on the right,
> something unheard of in Europe), the reckless talk on the phone, the
> driving of monster vehicles with raised bumpers that can kill above the
> protection area of any other car, the insurance companies that fail to
> make those guilty ones pay for every loss they cause, and so many other
> areas in which the government and organizations such as Mothers Against
> Drunk Drivers are totally indifferent.
>

What got me ****ed is an email I received from a friend. It made me
sick to stomach not only because it was gross, but because it's one of
those acts in which the people always blame someone else (terrorists or
the drunkard in this case) instead of facing their own responsibility
(their phone use, for instance). It's part of the hypocrisy we all live
under...

http://www.helpjacqui.com/home.htm

I'm adding my thoughts here to something I came across: "In a society
where truth is so camouflaged and avoided," the li-on hunter (read lie
hunter) is the most honest profession.

[donquijote1954]

P.Roehling wrote:
> "Nate Nagel" > wrote
>
> > The correct solution is to not have left exits and to enforce lane
> > discipline laws, and then this discussion will be irrelevant.
>
> Gee, if only the world were perfect...

In the meantime let people drink and drive and kill and be merry. Why
bother, the world ain't perfect...

[Tom Keats]

In article om>,
"donquijote1954" > writes:
>
> Jim Higson wrote:
>> donquijote1954 wrote:
>>
>> > (passing on the right, something unheard of in Europe)
>>
>> Funny, I thought the UK was in Europe.
>>
>
> Not anymore. Now it's the 51st state.

I thought the 51st state was The Moon.

Which might be right, after good 'ol
Wyoming, in some ways. Except there's
more oxygen in Wyoming.

Better scenery, too. Less NASA and USSR
junk lyin' around.

You can drive any way ya want on The Moon,
as long as nobody's comin' at'cha.

Maybe it's more-or-less the same in Wyoming.

Maybe The Moon should be an extension of
Wyoming. Just don't send horses there until
there's a viable NO2/O2 atmosphere.


--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[donquijote1954]

Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
>
> Yes indeed, the automotive industy encourages reckless driving because
> they make a fortune off replacing all the cars totalled in crashes
> every year. And the media is paid to go along with it by carrying all
> these sick commercials that glorify speeding and by referring to all
> crashes as accidents.
>
> The highway murder problem is the biggest crime problem in america and
> the most correctable Stop coddling these deadly speeders and DUIs and
> phone-drivers.

You should run for office instead of that (what's her name) Hillary
Clinton. Well, be ready to run without a chance because without money
you don't have a chance, and the insurance companies won't back you up.
:(

AIG Political Contributions by Subsidiaries Questioned in N.Y.
September 21, 2006

Major corporations based in New York such as American International
Group Inc. have legally contributed many times more than the corporate
limit to political candidates who regulate their businesses, state and
good-government officials said.

In the case of AIG, the insurance giant is limited to giving $5,000
(euro3,951) to a candidate. But the parent company used 33 subsidiaries
in recent years to give $335,000 (euro264,738) to three-term Republican
Gov. George Pataki; $50,000 (euro39,513) to Attorney General Eliot
Spitzer, the Democratic front-runner for governor; and $25,000
(euro19,757) to Democratic Comptroller Alan Hevesi, according to The
New York Times.

"That happens all the time,'' said Rachel Leon of New York-Common
Cause, which for years has lobbied to reform this and other campaign
finance practices.

"It's just one of the many loopholes that make our campaign finance
laws meaningless,'' she said. "We might as well not have any limits
because in the real world, they don't apply.''

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/east/2006/09/21/72628.htm

[donquijote1954]

Tim Kreitz wrote:
> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
> > Lane integrity laws.??
>
> That's right.
>
> You see, enforcing lane discipline and eliminating tailgating in the
> States would demonstrate that highway speed limits are largely
> unneccesary -- but the cops and politicians don't want that. After all,
> safer highways mean less revenue for the government. Instead, they
> allow unskilled nincompoops in 6,000-pound SUVs to drive like the
> inattentive morons they are, nabbing them in droves for going 5-over at
> $150 a pop. Easy money.
>
> Any number of studies and stats can be googled that show how in areas
> where highway speed limits are higher, per-capita fatalities are LOWER.
> Germany, Italy, and (until recently) Montana are all good examples,
> just for starters.

You are even better as a candidate. The answer is not repression but
rewarding of the good drivers who happen to be fast. Of course, SUVs
over 70mph get a hefty ticket. ($500 for starters)

Or maybe we should abandon any hopes of having a good candidate and
annex this country to Europe the way it once was (and apply its laws)
in the name of globalization and a New World Order. The globalization
trend we follow in China's path is not very good, in my opinion. ;)

[Ed H.]

I thought Puerto Rico was the 51st state.

"donquijote1954" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Jim Higson wrote:
>> donquijote1954 wrote:
>>
>> > (passing on the right, something unheard of in Europe)
>>
>> Funny, I thought the UK was in Europe.
>>
>
> Not anymore. Now it's the 51st state.
>

[Ludmila Borgschatz-Thudpucker, MD]

"PeterD" > wrote in message
...
>
> Repeat after me: you cannot merge on the highway with your foot on the
> brake. You have to be going the same speed, (or slightly faster) to
> merge, if you slow down, (and then eventually stop) you can't merge.

No, no, no. Here's how you merge. First, you MUST be talking on your
hand-held cellphone. Follow the car ahead of you on the on-ramp as closely
as possible. DO NOT, under ANY circumstances, even so much as glance into
the lane into which you are about to merge. After all, you have the
right-of-way, and cars already in the lane into which you and your
bumper-to-bumper butt-buddies are merging are obligated to move to their
left to let you in, regardless of whether it is safe to do so.

This is the way it is done in Minneapolis-St. Paul, where a quiz on rules of
the road actually found that a majority of respondents actually believe that
through traffic is obligated to make way for merging traffic.

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

PeterD wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 06:13:39 GMT, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are
> MURDERERS > wrote:
> >Stop coddling these deadly speeders and DUIs and phone-drivers.
>
> Yea, and make stepping on the brakes in the merge lanes a felony. You
> can't merge on a highway with your foot on the brake!

Yes you can, if you are going significantly faster on the entrance ramp
that the traffic in the right lane. This situation is common during
congested periods where the traffic on the controlled access road is
moving significantly SLOWER than the speed limit.

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.

[PeterD]

On 30 Sep 2006 13:07:35 -0700, "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman"
> wrote:

>
>PeterD wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 06:13:39 GMT, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are
>> MURDERERS > wrote:
>> >Stop coddling these deadly speeders and DUIs and phone-drivers.
>>
>> Yea, and make stepping on the brakes in the merge lanes a felony. You
>> can't merge on a highway with your foot on the brake!
>
>Yes you can, if you are going significantly faster on the entrance ramp
>that the traffic in the right lane. This situation is common during
>congested periods where the traffic on the controlled access road is
>moving significantly SLOWER than the speed limit.

Well, Jonny or Tom or whoever... Since you are supposed to accelerate
to the speed of the traffic on the road.

The eventual outcome of slowing down is stopping.

Just what one old IDIOT did to me in Boston some years ago. Slammed on
his brakes at the merge because he was afraid! I almost rear ended
him, did pass him on the right (wrong by law, but the option was a big
bang, body damage and probably injury) and still was able to merge on
the highway. Without stopping. Without slowing down!

[Matthew Russotto]

In article >,
n5hsr > wrote:
>
>"Bob" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>> n5hsr wrote:
>>>
>>> Or the law about doing more than 20 over the limit is a felony. If
>>> that's
>>> so, then 99.999% of the drivers on the TriState Tollway are felons,
>>> because
>>> the average speed most of the time is nearer 80 than 55. I've seen some
>>> days when it hit closer to 90, and even the right lane is going 75-80.
>>>
>>> Charles of Schaumburg
>>
>> If such an Illinois law existed you could be closer to being right than
>> wrong. Unfortunately for your hyperbole however, there is no such law.
>> I can only guess that you are referring to the "fleeing to elude
>> police" statute in which case you should stop quoting the law until you
>> actually *read* it.
>>
>> Try- http://www.law.cornell.edu/states/illinois
>>
>> Regards,
>> Bob Hunt
>>
>
>1. Page doesn't link.
>
>2. I have a friend who just happens to be a State Policeman who told me
>about it. Either he's lying to me (very doubtful) or he was lied to by his
>superiors.

He's a cop, cops lie. His boss is a cop, cops lie. You're a
semi-anonymous Usenet poster repeating a friend-of-a-friend story...

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs.asp

65 ILCS 5/11-601.5 says that doing 40 over is a class A misdemeanor.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

PeterD wrote:
> On 30 Sep 2006 13:07:35 -0700, "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >PeterD wrote:
> >> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 06:13:39 GMT, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are
> >> MURDERERS > wrote:
> >> >Stop coddling these deadly speeders and DUIs and phone-drivers.
> >>
> >> Yea, and make stepping on the brakes in the merge lanes a felony. You
> >> can't merge on a highway with your foot on the brake!
> >
> >Yes you can, if you are going significantly faster on the entrance ramp
> >that the traffic in the right lane. This situation is common during
> >congested periods where the traffic on the controlled access road is
> >moving significantly SLOWER than the speed limit.
>
> Well, Jonny or Tom or whoever... Since you are supposed to accelerate
> to the speed of the traffic on the road.

Imagine the following. An entrance ramp that starts out about 20 feet
lower in elevation than the controlled access road (not uncommon where
the street that the ramp connects the controlled access road passes
under the controlled access road). In addition to this difference, the
controlled access road has a 4 foot high concrete barrier wall at the
edge of the shoulder (also not uncommon).

If one accelerates up the entrance ramp at a normal rate for a modern
automobile, the traffic on the controlled access road can not be seen
until one is traveling 40-60 mph (depending on the exact rate of
acceleration and relative heights of the vehicles). Now if that traffic
is moving slower than that speed due to congestion, should one brake to
match speeds and merge, or not brake and crash into the slower moving
vehicles?

Please tell me, since I encounter this exact situation almost every
week day.

> The eventual outcome of slowing down is stopping.

Really? One can not slow to a speed faster than not moving, and
maintain that speed?

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.

[donquijote1954]

Ludmila Borgschatz-Thudpucker, MD wrote:
> "PeterD" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Repeat after me: you cannot merge on the highway with your foot on the
> > brake. You have to be going the same speed, (or slightly faster) to
> > merge, if you slow down, (and then eventually stop) you can't merge.
>
> No, no, no. Here's how you merge. First, you MUST be talking on your
> hand-held cellphone. Follow the car ahead of you on the on-ramp as closely
> as possible. DO NOT, under ANY circumstances, even so much as glance into
> the lane into which you are about to merge. After all, you have the
> right-of-way, and cars already in the lane into which you and your
> bumper-to-bumper butt-buddies are merging are obligated to move to their
> left to let you in, regardless of whether it is safe to do so.
>
> This is the way it is done in Minneapolis-St. Paul, where a quiz on rules of
> the road actually found that a majority of respondents actually believe that
> through traffic is obligated to make way for merging traffic.

I've seen another tendency out there. The smaller vehicle yields to the
bigger one irrelevant of right or wrong. Very similar to the Law of the
Jungle. Which is why many people consider bigger vehicles a necessity
for survival.

[donquijote1954]

wrote:
> Speeding isn't necessarily dangerous - inattentive driving is. Speed
> makes the consequences of an accident worse, but it rarely causes
> accidents. Cops could prevent many more accidents if they stopped
> targeting speeders and started giving tickets to people who change
> lanes without signaling, drive in the left lane and don't move over for
> traffic behind them, prevent others from mergin in front of them, eat
> and drink while driving, talk on the phone, fiddle with the radio,
> etc., etc.
>
> Of course this is much harder than sitting in a speed trap with the
> radar gun, and would bring in less ticket revenue.

Right. It's all about money and not right and wrong. Anything that
costs peanuts is not important...

RIDING A BIKE COSTS PEANUTS

OK, since the lion (for whom "peanuts" is not important) refuses to
listen to the monkey asking for bike facilities,* let's scrutinize the
secrets ($$$) of the political jungle, where "democracy" is the
word of choice...

"Remember the Golden Rule: Those with the Gold, Rule" (saying)

"The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" (title of book)

And this one...

"Freedom is when the people can speak, democracy is when the government
listens" -Alastair Farrugia

Oh, that one was so good. So let's see: The monkey can cry all he wants
but he will be ignored. Tough life that of the monkey.

Other quotes...

"Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is
silence about truth" -Aldous Huxley

That one was deep. We all live in the lie (notice the word "lie" in
li-on). And look at this one...

"The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they
don't have any" -Alice Walker

And this would threaten the order in the jungle...

"Democracy is when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the
rulers" -Aristotle

And here they must be talking about the lion...

"The wild, cruel beast is not behind the bars of the cage. He is in
front of it" -Axel Munthe

Many more quotes to entertain yourself are found at the link below. I
hope you use them responsibly and don't start a revolution.

http://www.democracy.ru/english/quotes.php

*Riding a bike is good for the environment, great for peace, and
excellent for your health. We need facilities, though, like BIKE LINES
to be safe.

[donquijote1954]

wrote:
> Speeding isn't necessarily dangerous - inattentive driving is. Speed
> makes the consequences of an accident worse, but it rarely causes
> accidents. Cops could prevent many more accidents if they stopped
> targeting speeders and started giving tickets to people who change
> lanes without signaling, drive in the left lane and don't move over for
> traffic behind them, prevent others from mergin in front of them, eat
> and drink while driving, talk on the phone, fiddle with the radio,
> etc., etc.
>
> Of course this is much harder than sitting in a speed trap with the
> radar gun, and would bring in less ticket revenue.

Right. It's all about money and not right and wrong. Anything that
costs peanuts is not important...

RIDING A BIKE COSTS PEANUTS

OK, since the lion (for whom "peanuts" is not important) refuses to
listen to the monkey asking for bike facilities,* let's scrutinize the
secrets ($$$) of the political jungle, where "democracy" is the
word of choice...

"Remember the Golden Rule: Those with the Gold, Rule" (saying)

"The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" (title of book)

And this one...

"Freedom is when the people can speak, democracy is when the government
listens" -Alastair Farrugia

Oh, that one was so good. So let's see: The monkey can cry all he wants
but he will be ignored. Tough life that of the monkey.

Other quotes...

"Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is
silence about truth" -Aldous Huxley

That one was deep. We all live in the lie (notice the word "lie" in
li-on). And look at this one...

"The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they
don't have any" -Alice Walker

And this would threaten the order in the jungle...

"Democracy is when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the
rulers" -Aristotle

And here they must be talking about the lion...

"The wild, cruel beast is not behind the bars of the cage. He is in
front of it" -Axel Munthe

Many more quotes to entertain yourself are found at the link below. I
hope you use them responsibly and don't start a revolution.

http://www.democracy.ru/english/quotes.php

*Riding a bike is good for the environment, great for peace, and
excellent for your health. We need facilities, though, like BIKE LINES
to be safe.

[PeterD]

On 30 Sep 2006 16:43:20 -0700, "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman"
> wrote:


>
>If one accelerates up the entrance ramp at a normal rate for a modern
>automobile, the traffic on the controlled access road can not be seen
>until one is traveling 40-60 mph (depending on the exact rate of
>acceleration and relative heights of the vehicles). Now if that traffic
>is moving slower than that speed due to congestion, should one brake to
>match speeds and merge, or not brake and crash into the slower moving
>vehicles?
>
>Please tell me, since I encounter this exact situation almost every
>week day.
>

Sadly, the answer is obvious. If you are going too fast, slow down. Of
course. But that's not the problem:

What is sadder is that I see all the time drivers coming down the
merge lane, at 10 to 20 MPH *LESS* than the traffic, and hit the
brakes.

I've learned that if you are going the speed of the highway traffic it
is most rare that you can't merge. If you are going faster, it is
difficult to merge, but experience at the particular ramp can help
with this. But if you are going slower then it is *IMPOSSIBLE* to
merge, and hitting the brakes only makes things worse.

I usually drive a truck. If I see a car trying to merge, and
accelerating I'll do everything I can possibly do to help that driver
get in. But if the brake lights flash on, all bets are off--there's
nothing I can do. I can't slow down (way too unsafe), usually speeding
up isn't an option. Often times, moving over (especially if I"m in a
slower truck) doesn't (usually) always work.

[donquijote1954]

wrote:
> 1. If you know that nobody will pass on the right, you can safely
> change to the right lane with a quick check that there is nobody next
> to you, because you know that there isn't anybody coming up faster from
> behind. This halves the number of lane-change accidents right there,
> because no such accident will happen in a lane change to the right.
>
> 2. You also know that traffic to the left is always faster, so people
> will take more care changing lanes to the left.
>
> 3. Lane discipline makes traffic flow much better. If you're driving
> fast, you can just stay in the left lane, and people will move right
> out of your way (which they can do easily and safely because of point
> 1). The fast driver doesn't have to weave in and out of traffic, which
> is another way that accidents are reduced.
>
> 4. Lane discipline makes traffic MUCH more predictable, which reduces
> accidents. At any point it's much easier to predict what any given car
> will or won't do. Again, this is much safer.
>
> Lane discipline and the "no passing on the right" rule makes roads much
> safer. There is absolutely no doubt about it. And to address your
> problem with people having to pass a slow driver in the left lane -
> that's an issue of enforcement and driver education. In most places in
> Europe, the slow driver would quickly move out of the way, and if he
> didn't, he would be the one that gets the ticket.

Absolutely true.

I wonder if any of our traffic officials have any clue about these
issues, or they just get paid high salaries to look the other way.

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

PeterD wrote:
> On 30 Sep 2006 16:43:20 -0700, "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >
> >If one accelerates up the entrance ramp at a normal rate for a modern
> >automobile, the traffic on the controlled access road can not be seen
> >until one is traveling 40-60 mph (depending on the exact rate of
> >acceleration and relative heights of the vehicles). Now if that traffic
> >is moving slower than that speed due to congestion, should one brake to
> >match speeds and merge, or not brake and crash into the slower moving
> >vehicles?
> >
> >Please tell me, since I encounter this exact situation almost every
> >week day.
> >
>
> Sadly, the answer is obvious. If you are going too fast, slow down. Of
> course. But that's not the problem:

The car I drive at the engine speed range I normally use on the ramp
will have about 25 pounds per horsepower, which puts it in the normal
range for modern passenger vehicles. Since I can not accelerate from 30
to 60 mph in 3 seconds or less, I would rather be going 60 mph on the
ramp so I can merge with the traffic if it is moving at normal "free
flow" speed, rather than counting on it moving slowly and only
accelerating to a lower speed. If there was a hard and fast rule that
braking on the ramp was illegal, I would be violating the law for doing
what is logical from a safety viewpoint, since I can decelerate at a
much greater rate than I can accelerate.

> What is sadder is that I see all the time drivers coming down the
> merge lane, at 10 to 20 MPH *LESS* than the traffic, and hit the
> brakes.

These people should have their licenses suspended until they learn to
merge.

One of the amazing things I find about many US drivers is that they
feel competent to follow another vehicle at less than 0.5 seconds of
separation and drive at 70+ mph on two lane rural roads, yet they are
scared to merge onto freeways and pass on two lane roads.

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.

[bill]

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> PeterD wrote:
>> On 30 Sep 2006 16:43:20 -0700, "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> If one accelerates up the entrance ramp at a normal rate for a modern
>>> automobile, the traffic on the controlled access road can not be seen
>>> until one is traveling 40-60 mph (depending on the exact rate of
>>> acceleration and relative heights of the vehicles). Now if that traffic
>>> is moving slower than that speed due to congestion, should one brake to
>>> match speeds and merge, or not brake and crash into the slower moving
>>> vehicles?
>>>
>>> Please tell me, since I encounter this exact situation almost every
>>> week day.
>>>
>> Sadly, the answer is obvious. If you are going too fast, slow down. Of
>> course. But that's not the problem:
>
> The car I drive at the engine speed range I normally use on the ramp
> will have about 25 pounds per horsepower, which puts it in the normal
> range for modern passenger vehicles. Since I can not accelerate from 30
> to 60 mph in 3 seconds or less, I would rather be going 60 mph on the
> ramp so I can merge with the traffic if it is moving at normal "free
> flow" speed, rather than counting on it moving slowly and only
> accelerating to a lower speed. If there was a hard and fast rule that
> braking on the ramp was illegal, I would be violating the law for doing
> what is logical from a safety viewpoint, since I can decelerate at a
> much greater rate than I can accelerate.

Sounds like my 'Merge at 90' that I used to do when I first started
driving. That wound up being my nick name in High school driver's ED.
Of course the fact that we were doing the driving tests with big block
1964 Dodges made some difference. The point of my high speed merges was
that I could slow down to pop into a hole in traffic. My instructor did
not agree.
Either way, I hate traffic.
Bill Baka
>
>> What is sadder is that I see all the time drivers coming down the
>> merge lane, at 10 to 20 MPH *LESS* than the traffic, and hit the
>> brakes.
>
> These people should have their licenses suspended until they learn to
> merge.
>
> One of the amazing things I find about many US drivers is that they
> feel competent to follow another vehicle at less than 0.5 seconds of
> separation and drive at 70+ mph on two lane rural roads, yet they are
> scared to merge onto freeways and pass on two lane roads.
>

[Nate Bargmann]

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 09:11:44 -0400, PeterD wrote:

> I see you are one of those idiots who gets to the merge, at *half* the
> speed of the others, twists their head all the way around, puts their
> foot on the brakes and then thinks "Damn, it's so hard to merge on
> highways".

Bingo!

Having seen this behavior for so long, I'm amazed that I haven't seen more
crashes as a result. Also, many merge lanes are poorly designed by running
uphill and shorter than need be for most vehicles to get up to speed when
merging. Then there's grandpa and grandma who normally putt along at 25
MPH no matter where they are suddenly finding themselves on the Interstate...

- Nate >>

--

"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds,
the pessimist fears this is true."

[donquijote1954]

You must admit that some places are more civilized than others. In the
UK, for example, they have figured out that order and cooperation is
better than chaos and competition. Well, at least when it comes to
driving...


How 2 Deal With Driving On Motorways
Many new drivers worry about their first time alone on a motorway.

Motorways are safer, than normal roads, but they are also faster.
Sometimes things do happen quicker, and you have to concentrate.

When you are on the main carriageway of the motorway, remain in the
first lane until you get used to the speed. If you need to overtake you
must return to the first lane as soon as possible but only if its safe
to do so! Many motorists try to stay in the overtaking lanes for normal
driving. This is bad practice and causes inconvenience and tailbacks
and annoys other users.

There are two types of motorway, rural and urban. You need to think of
them as quiet and busy. Quiet motorways are boring, so you need to
concentrate on the road and traffic conditions way ahead. Busy
motorways need your attention all around you rather than just focused
ahead.

Motorways are like dual carriageways only safer. They are safer because
every motorway user is travelling in the same direction and at similar
speeds. Another reason why motorways are safer is due to the fact that
traffic is restricted to those who can make best use of it i.e. no
pedestrians, cyclists, moped, no L drivers (except HGV), agricultural
vehicles, and animals. Motorways are also safer because there are no
sharp bends, no oncoming traffic, no right turn, and no roundabouts.
The lanes are always wide, and well marked, and are usually straight
for long distances.

Remember you are not allowed to reverse, cross the central reservation,
or to drive in the wrong direction on motorways.

On urban (busy) motorways each lane of traffic has an electronic signal
system which applies to traffic in each lane. Care needs to be taken to
make sure you know the various signals and what they mean. Motorway
signs are being used with increasing frequency to warn you of hold ups
or accidents ahead.

When joining a motorway you usually join from a roundabout or a main
road by means of a slip road. This leads to an acceleration lane. The
rule here is not to interfere with the traffic already on the motorway.
Make sure your speed is the same as the traffic already on the
motorway. Vehicles already on the motorway usually realise you need to
join the main carriageway and they try and move over to the other lane.
(This is not always possible if the traffic is busy). This makes room
for you to join the first lane of the motorway. Mirrors and signals
must be used correctly to avoid interfering with the following traffic.
Full and proper observation as you enter usually involves looking over
your right shoulder as well as using your door mirrors. Don't rely on
mirrors alone.

To get off the motorway the normal procedure is to look for the first
advance warning sign (1 mile from the exit). This sign gives the exit
number and the road number.


At half a mile from the exit a second sign identifies the towns for the
exit. Then at 300 yards from the deceleration lane there is a three
line countdown marker, (at this point you should begin to signal left
to say you are turning off - but don't slow down yet), followed by the
200 yd and 100 yd marker signs. Only when you have crossed into the
deceleration lane should you begin to slow down.

Once you get back on to ordinary roads again, you need to watch your
speed until you are acclimatised to the new lower speeds on the road.
Don't forget too, that these roads are likely to have roundabouts,
oncoming traffic, and sharp bends on them.

Breaking Down on the Motorway

Hopefully if your vehicle is well maintained and fuelled up, you should
be in no danger of breaking down on the motorway, but we all know that
even a car which is only a few hours old can still break down.

If you do break down then the hard shoulder is there to help you. When
you are stopping on the hard shoulder (remember, only use the hard
shoulder in an emergency), try to stop at one of the emergency
telephones. This will save you time if you have to walk to the phone.
Switch on your hazard lights and try to stop as near to the left as
possible. If you have passengers get them out of the car, off the hard
shoulder, and as far away from danger as possible. Do this before you
go to use the phone. The phone is always within half a mile from any
spot on the motorway. Look at the arrows on the nearest post, like the
one in the picture on the left. These will tell you the direction to
walk to the nearest phone. The phones are free to use, and connect you
straight to the police who control that stretch of motorway. When you
return to your vehicle to wait for help, do not get back into the car,
but stay on the embankment, or as far away from the traffic as
possible. If you have a mobile phone it's O.K. to use this initially,
but the police do prefer you to use the roadside phones to confirm your
exact location.

Remember that motorways are safe, but they are fast, you need to
concentrate because things happen quicker than a normal road.

Lane Discipline

When driving along motorways always remain in the left lane unless you
are travelling faster than traffic ahead of you and it is safe to move
over to the right lanes. If you use these lanes you must return to the
left lane as soon as it is safe to do so.

It is bad practice to try and stay in the overtaking lanes for normal
driving. This annoys other users because they can see that you are
avoiding the empty lanes on the left, or never using your mirrors to
see the tailbacks that you are causing. Remember the two-second rule.
Four seconds will give you time to react easily and you will be more
relaxed.

http://www.2pass.co.uk/motorway.htm