🚀 go-pugleaf

I think, since this is an old topic now, and to be considerate to the
rest of the ng, I will respond to your comments and drop out. If you'd
like to e-mail me directly, you're quite welcome. Just remove the first
x in my address.

> Rahul Dhesi wrote:
> 
> Consider this.  In the past, any time I mentioned maintaining a 2-3
> second following distance in ca.driving, a LOT of people (mostly the
> same ones who espouse the "keep right except to pass" philosophy) would
> jump on me offering many lame excuses such as:  That's xxx feet which is
> way too much; it wastes highway capacity; it's impossible because others
> will move in and take up the space.
>
I think 2-3 seconds would be a minimum at highway speeds so I'm on your
side on this point.
 
> Any time you argue with somebody it's useful to look at the person's
> overall stance on things.   When the same person who espouses "keep
> right except to pass" also espouses "2 seconds is way too much", you
> know that his goal is something other than a safe highway.  Typically
> the person is really saying: "get out of my way at any cost, and if you
> don't, I will follow you at 0.1 second until you do".  And they really,
> really do want you to squeeze right where there is no space so they can
> get by.  To such people I say:  *TTTTHHHHPFFFT*.
> 
Me too!

> I am not accusing you of being such a person (in fact based on your
> comments you almost certainly are not), but you *are* aligning yourself
> with a group that comprises mostly such people.  A group that spends
> most of its time blaming everybody else for its driving problems.  A
> group in which few ever admit to having had an accident for which *they*
> were responsible, even though they often complain about *others* making
> them have accidents.  A group, in other words, of mostly people who
> think everything is somebody else's fault.
> 
Thanks for the lack of accusation. However, I'm not aligning myself with
anyone. I DID come into this discussion halfway through so I didn't see
the start threads, but no "keep right" advocate's comments I have seen
so far suggests tailgating as the way to go. In fact I got the opposite
impression; they all appear to think that, by keeping right, tailgating
brought on by frustration would be all but eliminated.

> On the highways where I drive, typical following distance is 0.75
> seconds to 1 second in all lanes except the leftmost one.  I don't merge
> right into a narrow gap just to please some tailgater behind me.  My
> only obligation under those conditions is to go with the average flow of
> traffic in my lane, and that I do.  I do merge right if I can safely do
> so, and that means being able to maintain a minimum 2-second following
> distance and having nobody following too closely behind me.  Sometimes
> it will take a minute or two until conditions are right for this.  So
> that tailgater gets home and posts a complaint on Usenet about how
> somebody wouldn't merge right to let him pass.
>
Reading this suggests to me that you are basically a "keep right"
advocate yourself. (Read my entire response before you instinctively
disagree.) If you are in a stream of traffic and someone is expecting
you to get out of the way so he/she can move one car up, to hell with
him/her. You are going with the flow and that is all that can be asked
in heavy traffic.

> >What is so good about "few lane changes?" You seem to cling to this like
> >it's the holy grail of driving.
> 
> Most accidents occur during lane changes.  Eliminate lane changes and
> you will almost entirely eliminate non-DUI accidents.
> 
Although you don't say if you are basing this statement on evidence
rather than opinion, instinctively this does not sound right. There are
too many different types of accidents for this to be true. But rather
than bore you and the rest of the ng with my list of possibilities, the
real point here is that lane changes are as necessary a part of driving
as starting the engine. Even if this IS where most accidents occur, it
is the driver, not the maneuver at fault. Careless driving is what is
causing lane change-based accidents. Maybe it's time to introduce
mandatory advanced driving school or annual refresher courses before
highway driving is allowed.

> 
> Am I misunderstanding what you mean by 'lead car'?  The obvious meaning
> of 'where you are lead car' is that the next vehicle ahead of you is
> further away than a typical safe following distance.  And I'm saying
> that this is irrelevant.  In this context what matters is not your
> following distance but your speed relative to others.  If your following
> distance is 10 seconds but your speed is the same as everybody else in
> that lane, you are definitely a 'lead car'.  But there is no need to
> change lanes -- you are not holding up anybody.  Let me emphasize this:
> 
>    In this context what matters is not your following distance but your
>    speed relative to others.
> 
I see your point but do not totally agree. If you are simply a good,
safe (but not excessive) distance behind the preceding vehicles, going
at their speed, not losing them AND the right lane is heavily populated
with considerably slower vehicles, then fair enough. If you are starting
to fall back because they are faster than you, you really should make an
effort not to annoy the hell out of the following traffic and move right
at the first safe opportunity. Or simply keep up with the traffic.

> >If there are no further vehicles to overtake, return to the lane to your
> >right after making certain no-one has crept up on you from the right.
> >(This latter check wouldn't be necessary if everyone followed proper
> >form.)
> 
> NO!  IF I MOVE BACK INTO THAT LANE I WILL BE BACK AT MY PREVIOUS SPEED.
> I DON'T WANT TO BE AT THAT SPEED.  If I wanted to be at that speed I
> would not have moved left to begin with.
> 
To have to be back at your original speed suggests that there is another
vehicle in the right lane immediately ahead of you when you pull in.
Provided we are not talking capacity traffic, why wouldn't you just
overtake that too before pulling in and maintaining your speed?

THIS is where the two models - the fast/slow and the keep right -
differ. In the fast/slow model, you have a right lane going "slow" and a
left lane going "fast." (Using a two-lane road for simplicity.)
Unfortunately, a lot of people believe this is the case now. So if
grandpappy decides he's doing 45 so he must be going like a bat out of
hell, he figures "dah I'm going fast so I need to be in dah fast lane."
So even out in the boonies, he's tootling along in the left lane for
hundreds of miles. (We've all seen him!) When even small amounts of
traffic catch him, everyone in both lanes is forced to slow down until
they get a chance to sort it all out and pass him on the right.

In the keep right scenario, everyone for the most part will pass him -
good right-lane driver that he now is - at the speed they were doing
previously. Only someone catching him in the right lane might, just
might, have to brake slightly to allow a fellow left-lane motorist to
pass first out of courtesy since the left lane has right of way.

When the traffic starts to build to capacity, the keep right scenario
will naturally progress into a fast/slow look-alike scene. That's
because, once overtaking starts and traffic builds, there may not be an
opportunity to return to the right lane. So now you are down to 
following in lane, going with the flow, until you get home or traffic
thins and you can resume your previous speed in the rightmost
appropriate lane. Despite appearances, this is still a keep right
system. Only when someone THINKS he is fast and goes straight to the
leftmost lane based on nothing but speed does it all screw up.

The speed limit applies to ALL lanes - even the right lane. So even if
the SLOWEST car is doing 65 in a 55, he belongs in the right lane. Not
based on his speed but his RELATIVE speed. In other words, UNLESS YOU
ARE OVERTAKING, KEEP RIGHT. Then everything, including safety, falls
into place.

I apologise to the ng for the length of this response. I'm outa here -
at least on this topic!

Mike.