On 29 Sep 2006 11:07:55 -0700,
lubecki@hotmail.com wrote:
>Dave Head wrote:
>> On 28 Sep 2006 13:09:31 -0700, "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com>
>> 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work, and the law was repealed.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