🚀 go-pugleaf

c.c.eiftj@06.usenet.us.com (Rahul Dhesi) wrote:
>tomlinsc@ix.netcom.com (Chuck Tomlinson) writes:
>
>>I'm not nearly as quick to assume that the accounts posted here were 
>>of preventable crashes.  For example, if you can explain to me how ...
>
>So far we have a discussion of opinions.  No harm in that.  Next:

"Next"?  Does that mean you can't think of a way to avoid 
potentially damaging contact from a vehicle that rear-ends you while 
you're stopped?  Do you agree that this class of impacts is, in 
general, unpreventable by the driver in the front vehicle?
 
>>BTW, I find it amusing that some self-styled "safe drivers" are more 
>>concerned about the matter of potential fault than with avoiding a 
>>dangerous situation that could lead to a crash (witness the stance 
>>of left-lane bandits, for example).  Pretty ridiculous, IMHO.
>
>"Left-lane bandits" is a pretty prejudiced label.  Perhaps the label
>does apply to some.  But there are also motorists who simply stay with
>the traffic flow and don't make repeated lane changes.  The fact that
>you chose to use the phrase "left-lane bandits" suggests that you are
>not as objective in your driving as you would like readers to believe.

The whole area of driving courtesy is inherently subjective, isn't 
it?  My prejudice is towards safe, courteous driving.  Obviously, 
the LLB label does not apply to everyone who uses the left lane, 
only to those who unnecessarily obstruct the smooth flow of traffic 
by refusing to safely yield the left lane to drivers who choose a 
faster cruising speed.
 
>Isn't it possible that you are similarly subjective in how you describe
>accidents?

Anything is possible, I suppose.  But I am prepared (and able) to 
use the objective principles of physics and vehicle dynamics to 
explain why some crashes are not avoidable. 
  
>Furthermore, I don't see how even a confirmed "left-lane bandit" can
>actually cause an accident.  These bandits tend to go at a steady speed,
>making no lane changes and doing no sudden braking or acceleration.  I
>don't see how they would cause an accident.  

A LLB leaves faster traffic with no alternative but to pass him on 
the right.  For the lack of one lane change, the LLB forces multiple 
lane changes.  Yes, I used the word "forces".  Clearly, a single LLB 
cannot reasonably be permitted to dictate the maximum travel speed 
on a particular road.

Furthermore, by unilaterally forcing faster traffic to share the 
right lanes with slower traffic (leading inevitably to even more 
lane changes), the LLB is displaying discourtesy (deliberate or 
otherwise).  By remaining alongside the vehicles to their right, 
some LLBs will not allow enough room for other drivers to pass, 
leading to even greater disruption of smooth traffic flow.  

A natural consequence of the LLB's discourtesy is the frustration 
and anger of the drivers who are forced to pass the LLB on the 
right (or worse, are forced to remain behind the LLB).

By forcing multiple lane changes and/or increasing drivers' 
frustration, the LLB is (unnecessarily) fostering a dangerous 
situation which could (but does not necessarily) lead to a crash. 

Even if the LLB is not involved in such a crash, he can still share 
responsibility for the crash (which would not have occurred but for 
the LLB's poor driving). 
--
Chuck Tomlinson