Slow the fuck down, I'm trying to work!!!

[FlameBlade]

In New York: There are signs that says: "Keep to right except when to pass."

[MooCow]

Just to try an answer Adam's question.....

I don't need to, Cain pretty much got it. Daki and Flame clarified nicely.

However..... I'd like to note that unless specifically stated, the left most lane is /not/ only a passing lane. It is a lane for traffic just like any other. If it were only a passing lane, it would not be factored in for determining the number of lanes neccesary when designing highways (Based on speed limit and volume of traffic).

And everyone says that slower traffic should always keep to the right to help the flow of traffic. Hell, they put that on the /speed limit signs/ here in Illinois.

Yes, but what if the traffic in the lane to your right is moving slower then you? This happens to me frequently. I'll be traveling along at 80mph, and the traffic in the middle lane is consistently going 75ish. So I travel in the left most lane. If I see someone coming up behind me, I'll get over and let them past at the first opportunity. This is legal and in accordance with the design of the roadway (Except for the speeding part ).

especially if you take longer than you really have to.

We take longer then we really have to because you folks don't pay us jack shit. You don't pay us jack shit, so you get stupid individuals like myself instead of the qualified folks you'd otherwise attract to the job. Also, you insist on going with the lowest bidder, which is the stupidest idea ever invented.

This is all in the name of "Saving Money", but in the long run ends up costing the government far more in lost revenue and time.

[Anguirel]

Yeah, those fuckers... how dare they, you know, follow the law and do things in a legal fashion, utilizing the lanes appropriately according to the law.

"Slow" is a comparative term. If all the road signs say "Slow vehicles keep right" and you are driving slower than the other vehicles on the road, you should be keeping right.

Following the law is great. Getting your slow ass in the slow lanes reduces road rage. It's fairly well accepted that on major roads you can drive up to above 120KM/h if the speed limit is normally 100 or 110 - it may be illegal, but few cops will ticket you for it.

I generally stay to the right as a matter of course, but I am continually amused at people bitching about not being allowed to break the law. "Damn those security systems preventing me from shop lifting! How dare this car be locked and the keys not be in it so I can drive off with it! Stupid licensing requirements stopping me from obtaining vast quantities of dangerous substances!"

Even more fun, from your rant on it, was (and I paraphrase badly): "My friend breaks the law by weaving erratically and causing distubrances in traffic flow because he is unable to exceed the legal speed limit in a more orderly fashion." Like his inability to break the law easily excuses his dangerous (and also illegal) behavior.

[Adam]

Even more fun, from your rant on it, was (and I paraphrase badly): "My friend breaks the law by weaving erratically and causing distubrances in traffic flow because he is unable to exceed the legal speed limit in a more orderly fashion." Like his inability to break the law easily excuses his dangerous (and also illegal) behavior.

Yes, you do paraphrase badly.

First of all, I'd hardly call my first post a rant.

Secondly, I'm really not looking for an excuse/rationale to break the law. What I was wondering is /why/ weaving was considered to be bad for the flow of traffic, if the traffic flow was already poor due to people not keeping fast in the left lane and slow in the right lanes, or due to cars travelling ajacent all at the same speed, thus not allowing anyone to pass. Like I said, I don't drive, so some things that may seem logical to other drivers will pass by me without me noticing - I don't spend much time looking in the rearview mirror to see how people behind me are reacting, for example.

I think we can all agree that laws that are not well enforced should be re-evaluated; allowing cars to speed within a margin of error as a matter of course may be one of those situations. Of course, this is compounded by the numerous common sense violations I see on the road daily - some of which are committed by my roomate, certainly, but many of which are committed by, oh, at least 25% of the drivers on the road.

If you drive at a reasonable speed with the flow of traffic in the correct lane, then I applaud you.

[edit: changed a 'right' to a 'correct' to make the sentence more, uh, correct.]

[Cain]

Thanks for the other non-fucktarded responses, everyone else. I'm not quite sure I agree with them on some levels [if someone was driving like an ass behind me, I'd want to get out of his way and let him be an ass to other people, not box him in so he can continue to be an ass while riding my ass...], but the explanations make sense.

It's something I learned from driving a bus. One of the most irritating things a bus driver can do is "driving by the book"; keeping to every niggling law that most people ignore. Technically, busses in this area are supposed to drive about 5mph slower than the posted limit in most areas. The last time they did en masse was part of a labor protest, and they caused massive traffic jams across the city.
If you're dealing with a major asshole who's jumping all over the place, it's safer to keep him where you can watch him, inseatd of letting him go wherever (and perhaps cut you off at a misopportune time, possibly causing an accident.

However..... I'd like to note that unless specifically stated, the left most lane is /not/ only a passing lane. It is a lane for traffic just like any other.

That depends on where you live. In most urban areas, you're probably right. I do know that in the countryside in Washington State, however, the left lane is strictly for passing. One of my friends was recently ticketed for it.

[Reika]

Just some random thoughts on my part.

For the most part, I can accept the inconvience associated with construction due to the long term benefits, as Moo pointed out. Unless you're dealing with the dickwads in my area. Recently a road full of pot holes was started to be ripped up, needless to see we were happy to see this in the mistaken belief that what would be put down would be better. For whatever reason, the ripping up was never completed (I imagine for lack of funds, but no one has gotten any confirmation including some of the town leaders) and the resulting mess was filled in. The filling in wouldn't be so bad if they at least made an attempt to make it even with the existing road.

They didn't. It looks like they just slapped in a glob of pavement and left. So there is roughly anywhere from a half inch to two inch difference between the existing road and the "patches" depending on what part of the road you're on. And you can't avoid them, because they take up half the road. I just hope this doesn't fuck up the car's suspension since it's one hell of a rough ride for close to 3 miles.

I imagine we've all been through things like that, some worse than others (Like the time there was a 6 foot pit dug in front of the driveway of my previous apartment, with no warning given. We couldn't use our car for 5 days because the car was up the driveway when the frigging pit was dug. We didn't find out about the pit until I fell into it coming from work one night, mom had the day off because her job at the time had it as a vacation). So that's why so many people get their panties in a bunch over construction.

As for the weaving thing, I've seen too many idiots cause accidents because they cut things too close because the driver wasn't paying attention to the other cars around them. Or from other drivers trying to get out of the way of said idiots.

Just my two cents.

[ratlaw]

Moo, what you don't seem to get through your thick skull is that while the end result of your work is a benefit to everyone in the area, the time you take to get to your result is damned inconvenient, especially if you take longer than you really have to.

Perception is reality.

No, reality is reality. Perception is just your view of it.

However, Moo is correct: road work may be inconvenient, but not having the road work done would be /more/ inconvenient. Eclipse's new road surface may seem excessive bumpy to him, but I'm pretty confident it's better than if the road were left alone and never worked on or if there were no road there.

Getting back to perception vs reality (because the two really are different), having taken good observations of the construction workers, I think Eclipse should do a similar study of his own office. Humans are horrible at generating statistics without predefined rules of observation and a way to objectively record what is obsereved immeidately, so I take anyone's anecdotal claims of /their/ office not being that slack with a grain of salt. But I am interested to see if the office turns out to be just as, less or more slack than the construction site.

[Gunny]

However..... I'd like to note that unless specifically stated, the left most lane is /not/ only a passing lane. It is a lane for traffic just like any other. If it were only a passing lane, it would not be factored in for determining the number of lanes neccesary when designing highways (Based on speed limit and volume of traffic).

it's funny you say that because Blagojevich just signed a new traffic law that takes effect Jan. 1

Under the law, drivers on interstates will only be allowed to use the left lane under specific conditions, such as when the driver is passing other vehicles, no other car is directly behind or when traffic conditions and congestion make it impractical to switch to the right lane. Left-lane driving would also be allowed when there are obstructions in the right lane, when inclement weather makes it necessary or when one is exiting the highway from the left lane.

"The left lane is for passing," Blagojevich said. "If you want to drive a consistent rate and you're not actually passing, you should be in the other two lanes."

[Kwyndig]

Other two lanes? What the fuck is this idiot smoking? There are only six-lane interstates in one part of Illinois.

[Gunny]

I294, I90, I94, I88, I80, I355, I55 are all 6+ lane interstates in IL

I290 294/94 - Wisconson border to Indiana border
I88 - 3 lanes from Naperville all the way to Downtown chicago
I355 - Shaumburg all the way to LaMont
I80 - southern IL to southern chicago burbs
I90 - from Elgin to downtown Chicago(runs from western IL to eastern IL)
I55 - from SW suburbs into downtown Chicago

all of the 6+ interstates pretty much start from the middle of Illinois to northern IL.

[FlameBlade]

I knew that there was something wrong with Kywndig's statement...because after all...I drove on a lot of 6-lane highways through Illinois after finishing working at NASA on way to home in New York (making a stop in Wisconsin to see family...and of course, Cazmonster and Thorn )

[Gunny]

I can't take credit for all that. Daki gave me all the info over the phone.

speaking of NASA... *runs off to see today's picture on Space.com*

[MooCow]

it's funny you say that because Blagojevich just signed a new traffic law that takes effect Jan. 1

Well..... I stand corrected. This would really be counter to the way highways are designed (Or at least counter to how my experience says they are designed). But oh well.... Guess it's time to update how we design highways.

Personally, I think it's kinda silly. I mean, if we /technically/ can't go faster then the speed limit, why legally create a lane specifically for passing people who aren't going as fast as you? The chances that everyone in the other 2, 3, 4, etc lanes is going less then the speed limit is decidedly slim.

[Kwyndig]

There's nothing wrong with my statement. Almost all the 6-lanes highways head from the middle of the state northward. That's only one part of Illinois, the part between Chicago and the capital.

[MooCow]

the part between Chicago and the capital.

Is there another part worth being concerned about?

[Kwyndig]

*Grumbles*

[3278]

it's funny you say that because Blagojevich just signed a new traffic law that takes effect Jan. 1

Well..... I stand corrected. This would really be counter to the way highways are designed (Or at least counter to how my experience says they are designed). But oh well.... Guess it's time to update how we design highways.

Well, that's how they've always been designed. What you're talking about - design for capacity - assumes that enough people will be going enough different speeds that the "overflow" traffic will fill up the available roadway. Which is what happens, and what should. The problem is, some idiots forgot what they taught us in driver's ed, and think that once you're done passing, you just get to...hang out in the left lanes.

Personally, I think it's kinda silly. I mean, if we /technically/ can't go faster then the speed limit, why legally create a lane specifically for passing people who aren't going as fast as you? The chances that everyone in the other 2, 3, 4, etc lanes is going less then the speed limit is decidedly slim.

Not at all. Most of the people I pass on non-urban expressways are going around five miles an hour /under/ the speed limit. But, yeah, it's become this thing where the right lane is filled with people doing five over, and the left lane is people doing 10 over.

Personally, I avidly support legislation requiring people to drive in the furthest right lane they can. I've driven in the Netherlands, where they have just that, and the left lanes were almost always available for faster traffic. Of course, the drivers there are just better and more aware of their surroundings than our drivers here, in my experience, which helps.

[Van Der Litreb]

[derail]

Of course, the drivers there are just better and more aware of their surroundings than our drivers here, in my experience, which helps.

If this is indeed the case (and seeing as how I've never actually driven on, you know, a road, I really can't comment on that. I did notice, though, that drivers in New York City and Chicago made me want to break things, and I didn't even drive), it should probably be accredited to the rather extensive tests you need to pass in order to get your driver's license here. * You need 24 hours (I think it may have gone up, actually) of driving lessons with a licensed instructor, finalised with a driving test. You also need to follow classes on driving theory, such as reading signs and traffic, right of way, etc., followed by a written test. However, this also puts a driver's license in the area of 2000+ US Dollars.

* I think most Northern European countries have more or less similar rules concerning this.

[/derail]

[3278]

Lord, that would be fine with me. I also think you should periodically have to renew your license, and go through all the testing again. People get so lax about driving, they forget this is a dangerous and difficult thing. Plus, anything that reduces the number of drivers on the road who are so old they can't possibly react usefully at 70 miles per hour gets a vote in my book.

[Wildfire]

I also think you should periodically have to renew your license, and go through all the testing again

Only if retests are practical actual driving tests and not written ones with things like 'which way do you point your front wheels when parking on a downhill?' and 'what does the long balck and white sign that says ONE WAY on it mean' Even then, only if there were more staff, considering most DMVs have a 1-2 hour wait going before they even open the doors to do liscence tests.

[Van Der Litreb]

I also think you should periodically have to renew your license, and go through all the testing again.

Hey, me too. But then, I don't drive.

[DV8]

Perception is reality.

No, reality is reality. Perception is just your view of it.

Yes, I know. You might not believe it, but I got that.

What I was trying to say is that you might truth on your side, but as long as everyone else still thinks that construction workers are lazy shits, then they're still going to complain. It's sort of like witch hunts. All those innocent women that got burned at the stake had reality and truth on their side, and it didn't mean two shits because at a certain point their feet were still smoldering.

Who cares if you're right. It's not about being right. It's about convincing others that you are.

[The Eclipse]

Getting back to perception vs reality (because the two really are different), having taken good observations of the construction workers, I think Eclipse should do a similar study of his own office. Humans are horrible at generating statistics without predefined rules of observation and a way to objectively record what is obsereved immeidately, so I take anyone's anecdotal claims of /their/ office not being that slack with a grain of salt. But I am interested to see if the office turns out to be just as, less or more slack than the construction site.

I don't need to do that, I have corporate analysts that do it for me. My results are quite good.

(Understand my zeal in this matter, my job is to basically bust the balls of people like moo's colleagues who apparently can't tell a blueprint from a fingerprint and then dig up phone cables. There's nothing I like better than dropping a 250k dollar bill onto a company or goverment office whose trained monkey didn't realize the difference between the hash marks used to designate inches (") and feet('). )
I have fourteen counterparts doing the same managerial function as I do companywide. Our departments are rated according to a six different categories, currently my teams overall score has put us at #2 for this quarter. 2nd out of 14 seems like reasonably good results to me.
That combined with a 98% 'situations resolved within 24 hours', makes me feel quite satisfied with any scrutiny peformed by others.

Someone, I can't remember who, suggested that 'Maybe the crew was ahead of schedule?"

What the fuck difference does that make. First of all, the ones working outside my building aren't ahead of schedule, they are two months behind. And let's suppose they WHERE ahead of schedule, why not do something totally fucking revolutionary and FINSH AHEAD OF SCHEDULE.

Oh wait, union employees don't do that kind of thing....

[Van Der Litreb]

And let's suppose they WHERE ahead of schedule, why not do something totally fucking revolutionary and FINSH AHEAD OF SCHEDULE.

Well, chances are the workers outside your building aren't to blame. If they have been told to do X amount of work during the week, you can bet your arse they won't do more than that; not necessarily because they're lazy, but because they could get into serious trouble. (This is, of course, assuming that our union rules are at least somewhat similar)

[EDIT] Of course, it is entirely possible that they're all just lazy motherfuckers who should be fired on the spot.