🚀 go-pugleaf

Rahul Dhesi wrote:

>In <35a61eb9.52262784@news.v-wave.com> grimrod@mindless.moc (Brandon
>Sommerville) writes:

>>Perhaps, so why not close up to a two second differential?
>
>Two seconds is barely safe.  I much prefer three.  I do close to a
>three-second distance, but I don't feel obliged to do that by revving up
>the engine and screeching my tires.  

Two seconds is a lot of space around here.  I find that with watching
the vehicles in front of the guy in front of me, one and a half is
plenty.  More than that and the space gets quickly filled up.  If you
can screech your tires at highway speeds by accelerating, that must be
one hell of a car you're driving.

>An in any case, why the following
>distance might be longer than three seconds is a very different issue
>from your unjustified insistence that any time I am following at 4-5
>seconds I must merge to the right.  I think you were confusing between
>following at a distance and going slower then the next vehicle.  You
>didn't retract your claim, so perhaps you are still confusing the two
>issues.  I look way ahead when I drive -- not just at the next vehicle,
>but at the next half mile or so.

That's good to hear, but it makes no sense to block a faster vehicle
if you can safely yield the lane.

>>If I let someone ahead, I now have to wait a little longer to clear
>>the register (which I may do if they only have a few items and I have
>>a lot), if I'm driving and let someone ahead who is traveling faster
>>than me, I don't lose anything at all.
>
>Only if the capacity of the highway is infinite.

If you say so.  I don't see how letting a faster vehicle by slows me
down at all.  Getting held up by a lane hog definitely slows me down
though.

>My experience is that if I merge to the right to let a tailgater pass, I
>incur two penalties: (a) I have to slow down and lose time; 

If it is safe to move over, then you won't lose any time.  Worst case
scenario you touch your brakes while the other guy passes you, then
proceed to accelerate to your cruising pace.

>(b) I have
>to merge into a more-populated lane than mine and incur closer and less
>safe following distances.  

You don't have to stay in that lane, lane changes aren't a permanent
state.

>I really don't want to incur these penalties
>for the benefit of some discourteous tailgater with more horsepower than
>sense.  If he wants to get ahead, he needs to patiently wait at a decent
>following distance for a time when I can merge right safely and without
>slowing down.  

And if he isn't tailgating?  How much space do you require for a safe
lane change?

>He is always welcome to merge right himself and slow
>down, if he really thinks that's such a wonderful thing.  

That makes no sense at all.  He isn't asking you to slow down, he's
asking you to let him go by so he can travel at his chosen speed.

>I'm not
>willing to subscribe to the lop-sided double-standard that you seem to
>be advocating, under which tailgating gets you more privileges on the
>highway and safe drivers get less.

I've never advocated tailgating, but I've also never advocated
blocking faster vehicles, which you don't seem to have a problem with.
-- 
Brandon

"Spooooooooooonnnnn!"