From: robert@isgtec.com (Robert Osborne)
Newsgroups: ont.general,can.general,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: sdebar re passing or right (was sidebar re 401 (: -))
Date: 23 Aug 92 20:16:19 GMT
Distribution: can

woods@robohack.UUCP (Greg A. Woods) writes:
> Even on a long trip, a continuously higher average speed
> doesn't save all that much time.

By speeding it takes 3 hours instead of 4 to get to my parents.
What is your definition of "all that much time"?

> Are a few minutes worth a life?

I see: it's perfectly safe to drive the speed limit but if you
drive 20 kph over it's instant death to everybody in a ten
mile radius.  By this theory we should all be driving 10 kph;
after all is even a few hours worth a life?

> In article <3136@isgtec.isgtec.com> robert@isgtec.com (Robert Osborne) writes:
> > I will be so bold as to suggest that you need an attitude adjustment
> > and that maybe, just maybe,  it is not as hard for you to get
> > into the left lane as you judge it to be.
> 
> Never, Ever, try to fit your judgements of safety on someone else, esp.
> when your bias is so obvious.

Considering the lecture in the first and last parts of your post this
admonishment is hilarious.  Look up hypocrite while you are looking
up admonishment.

> That includes your judgement that it's safe for you to drive faster
> than the average traffic flow and or faster than the speed limit.

Speed limits are rather arbitrary and anybody driving the speed limit
is usually driving faster than the average traffic flow.

My judgement leads me to drive well under the average traffic flow
and the speed limit in wet, icy, or snowy conditions.  I guess I
should stop following my judgement and just drive the speed limit?

> If you're speeding, and tailgating, and have no reason to speed, then
> who do you think is causing the most problems with traffic flow?

Since I don't tailgate, flash lights, blow horns, or weave, my speeding
doesn't endanger anybody anymore than driving the speed limit would.

> > This principle works both ways;  you are also a law breaker and,
> > in my opinion, the more dangerous one.  You are interrupting traffic
> > flow.   Morons are weaving in an attempt to get around you.
> 
> There wouldn't be an interruption, or near so much danger, if everyone
> obeyed the speed limit *first* and the move-right law *second*,

Ahhhh,  here is an obvious bias:  you think the speed limit law
is MORE important than the keep right law.   But we already knew
that.

> and
> only changed lanes when absolutely certain that 1) everyone nearby
> knows you're about to change lanes, and 2) it's safe to do so, and
> last, but not least, 3) keep their speed up near the limit when
> possible, and make it obvious with 4-way flashers when they can't.

A lot of people only want to drive 90 kph at any time.
Should they always drive with 4-ways on?

> Regardless of the details, I will *not* take the responsibility for a
> weaving moron, though if blocking him is safe, legal, and will help
> cool his jets, I will try that, if for nothing else but other driver's
> safety (and of course the minor "power trip" that results -- it's
> especially neat when you can do it while riding a motorcycle! :-).

It isn't safe OR legal NOR will it "help cool his jets".
I didn't say you had to take responsibility for him,  he is still an
idiot.  However since he is weaving because you refuse to yield you are
also endangering everybody else on the road because you are a
self-rightous jerk who is just as much into power trips as the speeder:
your power trip comes from having forced a speeder to "cool his jets".

> The only thing worse than people who speed because they don't think it
> causes any harm, are people who smoke and think it only harms themselves.

Since I've yet to have an accident or cause an accident who have I
harmed?  If the speed limit dropped to 30kph tomorrow would it suddenly
be dangerous to drive 100kph?

Rob.
--
Robert A. Osborne   ...!uunet.ca!isgtec!robert or robert@isgtec.com
Newsgroups: ont.general