Spyderco Forums

My Dear Friend J.D.:

Your verbal tirades never cease to both amuse and enlighten.

I agree with you completely on this subject. I admit to very limited cell use while in transit, but only in the event of an emergency and when pulling off the roadway is simply not an option for whatever reason (which is rare).

The ignorance is not limited to cell phone addicts. Every day during my 3 hour commute I see the telltale signs of inconsiderate and selfish driving behaviours, many bordering on dangerous. Simple truths are overlooked, things such as "the acceleration lane onto the interstate is so named because entering the freeway at only 35 mph can get you killed," and "when people are attempting to merge, it is probably a polite idea to get out of the way and assist them in safely doing so instead of ignoring them in your blissful ignorance of everyone in the world but yourself."

Need I say more? :D

--------
Hannibal

about 5 times a day while I am casheering at work some fool waits through the line yammering on a cell phone only to get up to me, apologize to the party on the phone and without a glance or word to me start ordering while continuing to hold the phone to her ear. WHEN DID THIS BEHAVIOR CEASE TO BE RUDE?!?!? :mad:

My Dear Michael,

Michael Cook wrote:WHEN DID THIS BEHAVIOR CEASE TO BE RUDE?!?!? :mad:

It is still horribly rude, but cutting the throat of the offender is only a momentary pleasure and is bound to get you talked about.

--------
Hannibal

Hannibal Lecter wrote: " and "when people are attempting to merge, it is probably a polite idea to get out of the way and assist them in safely doing so instead of ignoring them in your blissful ignorance of everyone in the world but yourself."

Need I say more? :D

--------
Hannibal

Doc,
You’re not going to like this, but the only time I move to the left lane is when I pass. If traffic is too congested to allow merging traffic, then I either slow down or speed up to let the merging car in. It is merging driver’s responsibility to yield to the right-of-way (freeway driver), and most times they just expect others to move aside instead of merging properly (ie:speeding up, or slowing down to proper speed). If I am traveling along with no one in front of me, or behind me, then a merging vehicle has plenty of room to enter. More often than not, that is not good enough for other drivers as they seem to think that the driver with the right-of-way should move over. While it is common courtesy to let others in, I also believe it is common courtesy to yield to the right-of-way.

Reasoning:
If I am driving along the freeway, and a merging vehicle fails to properly merge, causing an accident involving hem and myself, I am in the right if I maintain my “lane presence”. However, if I decide to “move over” and let said driver in, then I have conceded the right-of-way. If, under these circumstances, an accident were to happen between myself and the merging driver, or another freeway driver (which is more likely) then I would probably beat fault because of an improper lane change (that’s what it would be called if an accident occurred while changing lanes, regardless of whether or not I used my directional indicators). Even if the passing vehicle was a motorcycle traveling 110 MPH, I would still be at fault for failing to make sure the way was clear.

Also (and this one really gets me), the practice of unnecessarily changing lanes to "make way" for a merging driver n creates traffic hazards. If a semi-trailer is traveling along at 60 MPH (which is their posted limit in my state) and decides to move over for someone who can easily slip in behind the semi, then there is a potential hazard created by that semi entering, at 60 MPH, a lane in which people are potentially passing. It also creates numerous traffic backups, as I am sure most of us have been caught behind a slow passing semi.

Once, when I was driving a 15 foot straight truck on the freeway, a gentleman in a pickup truck refused to merge. I usually try to maintain a consistent speed so the merging driver can chose whether he/she wants to enter behind, or in front of me. This particular gentleman wasn’t satisfied with that, so I slowed down to let him in (even though there was plenty of room for him to enter). When I did this, he slowed down and gave me a “dirty look”. When I “caught his eye”, I motioned him (with my hand) that I was letting him in, but he continued to stay even with me, and continued to give me that “look”. Then, since that wasn’t working, I speed up, thinking he could merge behind me. Problem was, he didn’t want to merge, he just wanted me to "get out of his way". So, instead of merging behind me he sped up to still stay even with me. All this time, there was nobody in front of, or behind me, and he had plenty of space in which to merge. He was just being belligerent.

We were taught in Drivers Ed. that it is the responsibility of the merging driver to merge, not the freeway driver. As with everything else, there are exceptions, but more often than not, changing lanes is not only unnecessary, but also hazardous.

My Dear Friend Ghostrider,

ghostrider wrote:You’re not going to like this...

You're probably right. :D But I won't take it personally either]...but the only time I move to the left lane is when I pass. If traffic is too congested to allow merging traffic, then I either slow down or speed up to let the merging car in. It is merging driver’s responsibility to yield to the right-of-way (freeway driver), and most times they just expect others to move aside instead of merging properly (ie:speeding up, or slowing down to proper speed). If I am traveling along with no one in front of me, or behind me, then a merging vehicle has plenty of room to enter. More often than not, that is not good enough for other drivers as they seem to think that the driver with the right-of-way should move over. While it is common courtesy to let others in, I also believe it is common courtesy to yield to the right-of-way.[/QUOTE]

I don't have a problem with this analysis, as I will grant that it is following the "letter of the law" so to speak where roadway etiquette is concerned. I will state for the record, however, that were people more concerned about the "spirit of the law" in general and more courteous then my rant would not be necessary to begin with.

I like nothing better than drivers that are sufficiently aware of what is going on around them. These drivers, such as yourself, can make minor adjustments in speed and allow everyone to drive smoothly rather than to perform the flow-altering lane changes you detail. The trouble is, so few drivers seem to pay any attention anymore.

All I am calling for is a return to courteous behaviour. I figure if it too much to ask people to stop driving like idiots, at least maybe they could stop acting like idiots while on the road. :D

ghostrider wrote:Also (and this one really gets me), the practice of unnecessarily changing lanes to "make way" for a merging driver n creates traffic hazards.

Again, this has so much to do with driver awareness. If they would hang up the cell phones and actually concentrate on driving it would alleviate a lot of trouble. I too abhor the constant lane changing where it seems as though the offending driver can't quite make up their mind where they are going... :rolleyes:

ghostrider wrote:Once, when I was driving a 15 foot straight truck on the freeway, a gentleman in a pickup truck refused to merge. I usually try to maintain a consistent speed so the merging driver can chose whether he/she wants to enter behind, or in front of me. This particular gentleman wasn’t satisfied with that, so I slowed down to let him in (even though there was plenty of room for him to enter). When I did this, he slowed down and gave me a “dirty look”. When I “caught his eye”, I motioned him (with my hand) that I was letting him in, but he continued to stay even with me, and continued to give me that “look”. Then, since that wasn’t working, I speed up, thinking he could merge behind me. Problem was, he didn’t want to merge, he just wanted me to "get out of his way". So, instead of merging behind me he sped up to still stay even with me. All this time, there was nobody in front of, or behind me, and he had plenty of space in which to merge. He was just being belligerent.

You give me an opening and I will take it... :D

ghostrider wrote:We were taught in Drivers Ed. that it is the responsibility of the merging driver to merge, not the freeway driver. As with everything else, there are exceptions, but more often than not, changing lanes is not only unnecessary, but also hazardous.

Agreed, but it should be the duty of the freeway driver to make minor accommodations as you do to assist the merging driver.

At least in my world, that is how I would like to see it. Does everyone where you live drive like you? Where did you say you live again? :p Sounds much easier on my nerves while driving than my current locale...


--------
Hannibal

P.S.: If anything contained herein strikes you as offensive, you are reading it wrong. Likewise, if at any point you think for one second that I am offended, you are again incorrect in your assumption. You are a friend of mine and I would not behave so. :D

No offense taken Doc, as I have come to expect like response from you. When people, such as ourselves, understand that the other has no antagonistic intentions, then the atmosphere created by that relationship, allows for open disagreement (BTW, I think we are in agreement here, just different methods(maybe)), without fear of offending the other party. I have every confidence that: if you ever did find something I said offensive, you would promptly bring it to my attention with full confidence that it wasn’t my intent (we all make mistakes, or are missunderstood at times).

Like you said “honorable men can disagree honorably”. That is because it is understood, between honorable men, that it is only disagreement.

My Dear Friend Ghostrider,

ghostrider wrote:No offense taken Doc, as I have come to expect like response from you. When people, such as ourselves, understand that the other has no antagonistic intentions, then the atmosphere created by that relationship, allows for open disagreement (BTW, I think we are in agreement here, just different methods(maybe)), without fear of offending the other party. I have every confidence that: if you ever did find something I said offensive, you would promptly bring it to my attention with full confidence that it wasn’t my intent (we all make mistakes, or are misunderstood at times).

I agree completely. It is difficult, nay impossible, to gauge tone via the typed word. I will generally discount the possibility that a post is intentionally offensive unless proven otherwise.

ghostrider wrote:Like you said “honorable men can disagree honorably”. That is because it is understood, between honorable men, that it is only disagreement.

And nothing any more significant than that. :D

All the best to you, my friend!

--------
Hannibal

Just to show that there is strong evidence linking cell phone usage by drivers and accidents, Wired News ran this today.