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

On 28 Sep 2006 13:09:31 -0700, "donquijote1954" <[email protected]>
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 This silly law was repealed 30+ years ago here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

Dave Head wrote:
> On 28 Sep 2006 13:09:31 -0700, "donquijote1954" <[email protected]>
> 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 This silly law was repealed 30+ years ago here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

"Nate Nagel" <[email protected]> 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.

P.Roehling wrote:
> "Nate Nagel" <[email protected]> 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

On 29 Sep 2006 11:07:55 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>Dave Head wrote:
>> On 28 Sep 2006 13:09:31 -0700, "donquijote1954" <[email protected]>
>> 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

"Dave Head" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 28 Sep 2006 13:09:31 -0700, "donquijote1954"
> <[email protected]>
> 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

"Dave Head" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 28 Sep 2006 13:09:31 -0700, "donquijote1954"
> <[email protected]>
> 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

On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 18:42:22 -0400, "Bill Brabender" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Dave Head" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On 28 Sep 2006 13:09:31 -0700, "donquijote1954"
>> <[email protected]>
>> 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
>
>

On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 22:45:32 GMT, "Tomes" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Dave Head" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On 28 Sep 2006 13:09:31 -0700, "donquijote1954"
>> <[email protected]>
>> 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

>
>

In article <[email protected]>,
"donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote:

> [email protected] 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.

Not true, in practice.

When there is 'no' passing on the right, everyone (60% of cars?) doing
70 (or more) are stuck on the outside lane, all close behind one another.

The inner lanes are virtually empty.

Except for the really impatient people who overtake (illegally in UK) on
the right lanes - even if it's hard to stick behind someone doing 70 MPH
*exactly* and hogging that lane, even tho the inside lanes are sparsely
occupied.

Ever seen many people moving (and indicating) right to move over, then
move back to the outside lane? No, they stay exactly where they are in
the outside lane because 'I'm doing 70 and that's the limit, so I won't
move over'.

Having driven on both interstates and motorways, I can say that 'any
lane' driving on interstates is far better and utilises the expensive
roads far better. This of course, assumes that the driver is spatially
aware of traffic in front, behind and to the sides- not always the case
when they are on the phone, eating burgers or drinking coffee at 70mph -
but this is a concern whatever country one lives in.

Molesworth