pet peeves

[09jisaac]

Nobody is "punishing" anybody for speeding. I don't believe in traffic laws, for crissake. :lol:

Believe in them, they are real. I get your meaning though, I think. I don't think there should be a crime without a clear victim. Who am I hurting by speeding? No one.

Well please dont try to drive in europe or anywhere else in the world for that matter. The left lane is for passing, if a car is coming up on you, move over expeditiously. You dont need to wait until i pass or until youre 10 car lengths in front of the car that you are passing by 5mph.

Slowing down only decreases the following distance which makes it more likely for you to get rear ended. Ive never understood americans mindset on this. It's something to do with the entitlement mentality. This is my road and my space around my car and im doing the speed limt. youre breaking the law by speeding so i am going to punish you by driving slow or try to get you to rear end me.

Slowing down ONLY decreases the following distance if you maintain your speed or do not decelerate with me. That is not my problem. If you maintain the same spacing, going slower gives you more time to react, to stop and you need less stoping distance.

When I am hauling anything it is big enough to ruin your day if it falls off. Usually it is plenty large enough to get its killing done. It is my responsibility to secure my load, but that does not mean you should trust me. I may have "secured" a car with shoe lace and duck tape or maybe a nylon strap is rubbing on a sharp edge. Do you honestly think you should trust your life to a stranger for 20ft of road? If I maintain my speed, you'll only get there slightly slower giving me 60ft as you would if you only give me 20.

Don't act like it someone else's fault for your aggressive driving.

Nobody said anything about the fast lane. In fact, most of the time I've see or experienced this it has been on two-lane roads where the numpty behind me wasn't happy with speed limit plus a bit.

It is the passing lane/ driving lane, not fast lane/ slow lane.

 

[eye95]

...It is the passing lane/ driving lane, not fast lane/ slow lane.

Both pairs of distinctions are correct. As a matter of fact, I see far more signs that say, "Slower traffic keep right," than I see signs that say, "Keep right except to pass."


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[MAC702]

"Grammar NAZI's" +1

It's nazis, no apostrophe.

 

[MAC702]

I have two minor peeves. One is the use of "myself" in place of "I" or "me" as the subject in a sentence. To me (not "myself"), this indicates that the writer is unsure of the proper use of "I" and "me" and has decided to eliminate the problem by using "myself", which is seldom proper usage. The second peeve is when my expression of "thank you" is returned with "no problem". The proper, polite response is "you're welcome". These are both minor irritations, but indicate, to me (not myself), the decline in standards of education and social skills.

Pet peeve: writing in all-caps or bold print when not necessary. It makes things take twice as long to read because the letters are not as differentiated as in standard type.

 

[OC for ME]

Higher speeds wear the road surface at a faster rate. Speeding is a "victimless" crime until.....make speeding a add on charge. Speeding wastes fuel. Speeding means that you had to cut me off to get to that great parking spot before me.....grrrr.

 

[MAC702]

... Speeding wastes fuel....

45 MPH in overdrive uses a lot less fuel than 35 MPH in the next lower gear at a higher RPM. There can be no regulation on the fuel argument. Every vehicle / transmission combination is different.

 

[eye95]

I have no problem with speeding laws. Roads are engineered for certain speeds and excessive speeding (as well as large speed differentials) causes accidents (some to others) and makes accidents more severe. The State has a legitimate interest in setting driving rules (for example, choosing the direction of traffic in certain lanes). Once you accept (and you logically must accept) that the State can set up some rules for driving, then the only question that remains is, "What rules?" Defining upper limits for speeds on roads is a reasonable rule to set.

That is not to say the speed limits have been set reasonably. I think every one of them is about five miles per hour low!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[MAC702]

I have no problem with speeding laws...

That is not to say the speed limits have been set reasonably...

This.

 

[eye95]

I notice that you did not agree with my 5 mph assessment!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[JustaShooter]

Nobody said anything about the fast lane. In fact, most of the time I've see or experienced this it has been on two-lane roads where the numpty behind me wasn't happy with speed limit plus a bit.

It is the passing lane/ driving lane, not fast lane/ slow lane.

This completely misses my point, which has nothing to do with what the inner lanes of a 4-lane road are called or even what their purpose might be. It is about the behavior of the other driver when there are no alternate lanes.

 

[marshaul]

45 MPH in overdrive uses a lot less fuel than 35 MPH in the next lower gear at a higher RPM. There can be no regulation on the fuel argument. Every vehicle / transmission combination is different.

Yup. This also depends on the vehicle's drag coefficient, but this is true until drag dominates, which on a modern car is likely upwards of 80 MPH.

 

[marshaul]

This completely misses my point, which has nothing to do with what the inner lanes of a 4-lane road are called or even what their purpose might be. It is about the behavior of the other driver when there are no alternate lanes.

I'd also like to point out that, in the event we were talking about a multi-lane highway (which we were not), there is a proper signal meaning "get over so I can pass", and I'll give a little hint: it's not tailgating.

If someone isn't knowledgeable and experienced enough to know that flashing one's lights is the proper signal, that someone isn't knowledgeable and experienced enough to really need to pass anyway. Self-evidently.

If you flash your lights at the guy and he doesn't get over, he's a dick and I'm right there with you. Frankly, though, if you tailgate him and he doesn't get over, well, you're still the dick for tailgating, and I have precisely zero sympathy.

 

[shaun]

In response to Marshaul, it seems only the US drivers don't know that. Having lived overseas, all countries in which I spent time, flash the lamps, they move over. Of course, in the Middle East, I think they always drove with an automatic brights flasher from the moment they started the car! Multi-lanes, of course.

 

[marshaul]

Of course, in the Middle East, I think they always drove with an automatic brights flasher from the moment they started the car!

lol! Sounds about right. :lol:

 

[davidmcbeth]

I always post in this font and have been doing so for a long time. I am not going to justify it to you or explain why it is "necessary".

Not a peeve ... but have you hit the "ctrl" and "+" keys on your keyboard at the same time gutshot?

not everyone has 20/20 vision ...

 

[stealthyeliminator]

I have no problem with speeding laws. Roads are engineered for certain speeds and excessive speeding (as well as large speed differentials) causes accidents (some to others) and makes accidents more severe. The State has a legitimate interest in setting driving rules (for example, choosing the direction of traffic in certain lanes). Once you accept (and you logically must accept) that the State can set up some rules for driving, then the only question that remains is, "What rules?" Defining upper limits for speeds on roads is a reasonable rule to set.

That is not to say the speed limits have been set reasonably. I think every one of them is about five miles per hour low!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

If you believe that the government does not legitimately own any of the roads that it builds or maintains, then you cannot logically accept that the State can set up some rules for driving. Rules for driving should be set up as rules are set up on all other privately owned property.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

I always post in this font and have been doing so for a long time. I am not going to justify it to you or explain why it is "necessary".

If everyone started posting in font size 4, would you move up to font size 5?

 

[eye95]

If you believe that the government does not legitimately own any of the roads that it builds or maintains, then you cannot logically accept that the State can set up some rules for driving. Rules for driving should be set up as rules are set up on all other privately owned property.

So the State cannot make a rule saying that the eastern lanes of a divided highway are for northbound travel and not southbound travel? That's just dumb. Again, once you reasonably accept that the State must make some rules, the only remaining question is, "What rules?"

Anyway, continue to argue the point. I have made mine sufficiently for anyone who wants to rationally consider it, so I won't bother to respond further. Moving on.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[stealthyeliminator]

So the State cannot make a rule saying that the eastern lanes of a divided highway are for northbound travel and not southbound travel? That's just dumb. Again, once you reasonably accept that the State must make some rules, the only remaining question is, "What rules?"

Anyway, continue to argue the point. I have made mine sufficiently for anyone who wants to rationally consider it, so I won't bother to respond further. Moving on.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

No more than they can make a rule saying that everyone in your home must travel clockwise around the kitchen island to avoid collision. Have a wonderful day.

 

[09jisaac]

This completely misses my point, which has nothing to do with what the inner lanes of a 4-lane road are called or even what their purpose might be. It is about the behavior of the other driver when there are no alternate lanes.

No, I got the point and agreed with it. Without anything else to add I made a correction.

I have no problem with speeding laws. Roads are engineered for certain speeds and excessive speeding (as well as large speed differentials) causes accidents (some to others) and makes accidents more severe. The State has a legitimate interest in setting driving rules (for example, choosing the direction of traffic in certain lanes). Once you accept (and you logically must accept) that the State can set up some rules for driving, then the only question that remains is, "What rules?" Defining upper limits for speeds on roads is a reasonable rule to set.

That is not to say the speed limits have been set reasonably. I think every one of them is about five miles per hour low!

Most (newer) roads are designed to handle speeds in excess of the posted speed limit. I have no problems with a speed limit either, but I do not think it should be enforced without a clear victim. I see nothing wrong with the government passing any unreasonable laws, as long as it is not enforced unless it hurts somebody in some tangible way.

Both pairs of distinctions are correct. As a matter of fact, I see far more signs that say, "Slower traffic keep right," than I see signs that say, "Keep right except to pass."

I hear a magazine called a clip far more times. So is a "clip" correct also?

Still though, just because the slower traffic is suppose to keep right, does not mean either is a "slow" or "fast" lane.