Here is one of your favorite posters --
From: gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com>
Newsgroups: misc.transport.road,rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: out of my way, punk!
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 23:04:58 -0700 (PDT)
Organization:
http://groups.google.comLines: 78
Message-ID: <f4353720-6cb5-408a-aa76-1d7bec3cfb54@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.27.157.240
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1217311498 329 127.0.0.1 (29 Jul 2008 06:04:58 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 06:04:58 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.15)
Gecko/20080623 Firefox/2.0.0.15,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news1.google.com misc.transport.road:8985 rec.autos.driving:7246
On Jul 24, 1:37 pm, N8N <njn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 24, 11:50 am, gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 23, 3:58 pm, Alexander Rogge <a_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > The problem of traffic congestion is being caused by the LLBs, not
> > > necessarily the traffic density. This is very obvious when watching the
> > > brake lights in the braking waves caused when the LLBs cause traffic to
> > > bunch up behind them.
>
> > Traffic could not bunch up behind them...
>
> > It's a pretty simple matter to maintain a R&P following distance, but
> > of course many people seem to feel they don't have time for that.
> > They seem to have concluded a few car lengths closer to the vehicle to
> > their front will speed their travel.
>
> Most people, when coming up behind a significantly slower vehicle on
> the highway, will slow, but at the same time allow their following
> distance to close up a little. reason being that a) they expect other
> drivers to be "going with the flow"
You don't know what other drivers expect, and if they expect a
significantly slower vehicle to accelerate to go with the flow their
expectation is unreasonable.
> and b) a conscientious driver will
> not slow sharply unless absolutely necessary to avoid creating a
> "braking wave" behind them that will end with a panic stop by a car a
> few cars behind.
Lifting off the throttle a little sooner seems most likely to
eliminate any need for braking.
And a conscientious driver isn't so conscientious that they give a
rat's ass about any vehicle several vehicles to their rear.
You seem to have forgotten, the multitudes of morons on your roadways
are "perfectly safe"... or is this that r.a.d. exception... they're
"perfectly safe" as long as they never have to slow not of their own
accord?
> Also, they're looking for an opportunity to change
> lanes while slowing, and want to maintain as much speed as possible so
> as not to have to accelerate at full throttle to avoid cutting off
> another driver - or worse yet, find themselves stuck behind a slow
> driver and *unable* to accelerate fast enough to be able to change
> lanes around the slowpoke. (the latter being a good argument for not
> driving underpowered vehicles...)
The former being a good argument for recision of one's license.
An obsession with velocity, especially to the degree where one would
strive to "maintain as much speed as possible" is illogical,
especially for the ridiculous reasons you've outlined.
A few seconds or a minute or two makes no difference to the driver who
has allotted sufficient time to travel.
> > 999 times of 1000 brake lights on a highway most strongly suggests a
> > driving error on the part of those braking, since they could have
> > lifted off the throttle sooner and avoiding braking entirely.
>
> I would agree with that statement, except that I've actually been
> driving a POS '05 Impala for the last few years. Braking in that
> vehicle is unavoidable;
For you that may be true. A competent driver knows and compensates
for the handling characteristics of their vehicle.
> it has essentially zero compression braking.
> It will actually pick up speed on a slight downgrade with the throttle
> fully closed.
"Not your fault", huh?
-----
- gpsman