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: 27 Aug 92 19:05:40 GMT
Distribution: can

woods@robohack.UUCP (Greg A. Woods) writes:
# In article <3169@isgtec.isgtec.com> robert@isgtec.com (Robert Osborne) writes:
# > By speeding it takes 3 hours instead of 4 to get to my parents.
# > What is your definition of "all that much time"?
# 
# Whew!  Either your trip is done on roads with really low speed limits,
# or you've greatly exceeded the speed limit.  If I've not forgotten
# basic algebra, that's a 33% increase in your *average* speed, even
# with the entire trip on a clear highway!
# 
# > 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?
# 
# Sorry, but you've completely missed the point.

You weren't clear on why driving 120kph was far more dangerous
than 100kph.  You just said 120 was dangerous and 100 wasn't.

# The speed limit is the law.  Rightly or wrongly people assume other
# people are going to follow the law (and some even expect a certain
# amount of courtesy!).  Speeders cause such assumptions to fail, often
# causing chain reactions that may result in accidents.

Anybody who assumes that nobody is going to speed has either never
driven before or is a fool.

I'm a courteous driver and resent the insinuation to the contrary.

# > Speed limits are rather arbitrary and anybody driving the speed limit
# > is usually driving faster than the average traffic flow.
# 
# Ah!  So, you don't drive long highway miles between large population
# centres then?  On two and four lane highways in Western Canada, the
# average traffic flow is usually within 5% of the speed limit.  The
# speeders usually balance out the slow-pokes, though the slow-pokes do
# indeed usually follow the rules.

Usually the 400 has one lane travelly 120-*, one lane travelling between
90-100 and another lane traveling <90.

# > 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?
# 
# No, please don't, though don't be selfish and only consider your own
# ability and that of your vehicle.  Please also consider the skills,
# capabilities, and potential assumptions of those near you.

Should I assume that they will pull into a lane without checking
to see if it's clear?  Should I assume my speed will drag them
into my lane?  What potential assumptions or lack of skills
are you talking about.

# > Since I don't tailgate, flash lights, blow horns, or weave, my speeding
# > doesn't endanger anybody anymore than driving the speed limit would.
# 
# How blind you are!
# 
# If you speed in any area where others might need to enter or leave
# your lane, you are endangering them.  Period.

How?
Please explain.

# > A lot of people only want to drive 90 kph at any time.
# > Should they always drive with 4-ways on?
# 
# That's a rather obvious number.  I believe the law says something
# about percentages, but I'm ashamed to say I can't quote it.

(Aside: Why did you delete the context for my article?)
You said anybody not driving near the speed limit should have
4-way flashers going.  Is 90 near 100 by your definition,
I don't care really care what the law says.

# > 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".
# 
# Well, at least my power trips are within the bounds of legality (if
# you stretch the "safe-to-change-lanes" rules a bit -- after all, this
# is a true judgement call that I'm responsible for).

Context!
Bullshit, you said you'd block him to cool his jets.
I'm beginning to think you removed the context so you wouldn't look
like such an idiot.

# > 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?
# 
# Harm?  How do you know you haven't scared the living bejesus out of
# some poor sod you've gone screaming past?  Just because he didn't have
# an accident doesn't mean you didn't endanger him.

Oh please.  I don't 'scream past' anybody.  I don't drive 200 kph.

With so many people speeding I don't see how one more could scare
the bejesus out of anybody.  If I do they shouldn't be on the road.

Rob.
--
Robert A. Osborne   ...!uunet.ca!isgtec!robert or robert@isgtec.com
Newsgroups: ont.general,can.general,soc.culture.canada