Path: utzoo!utgpu!bnr-vpa!bnr-fos!bnr-public!schow
From: schow@bnr-public.uucp (Stanley Chow)
Newsgroups: ont.general
Subject: Re: Highway Driving Rules
Summary: Please read what I posted
Message-ID: <478@bnr-fos.UUCP>
Date: 7 May 89 23:27:42 GMT
References: <440@bnr-fos.UUCP> <9523@watcgl.waterloo.edu>
Sender: news@bnr-fos.UUCP
Reply-To: schow%BNR.CA.bitnet@relay.cs.net (Stanley Chow)
Distribution: ont
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Lines: 72
Followup-To:
Keywords:


If only people read what I post! 


In article <9523@watcgl.waterloo.edu> kim@watsup.waterloo.edu (Kim Nguyen) writes:
>In article <440@bnr-fos.UUCP> schow@bnr-public.UUCP (Stanley Chow) writes:
>>The research that I have seen tend to say that it is not the absolute speed, but
>>the relative speed difference that causes accidents. It is also said that the
>>"slow drivers" cause more accidents for the "fast drivers" than the other way
>>around.
>>
>>To summarise, low speed limit does not reduce accidents. Even it does, people
>>should be allowed to *choose* to live dangerously.  [...]
>
>It inspires fear in me to see educated, intelligent people
>advocating that "SLOW" drivers are the problem on highways.  

Please read what I posted. I made no such claim.

I tried to point out that it is the *speed differential*, not the absolute
speed that causes accidents. I also pointed out that supposedly, different
groups of drivers cause accidents differently.

Nowhere did I pass judgement on which group is right or wrong.

If you feel like a tirade against speeders, just do it. Why do you have
to drag me into something I did not say?

>         [...]                                        Pardon
>me, but isn't it the drivers who disregard the law, common sense, and
>civility who endanger the lives of law abiding (well, relatively
>speaking, since we ARE talking about speeding :-), courteous drivers?  
>

Please note that I merely refered to two *relative* groups - the fast 
drivers and the slow drivers. Nowhere did I suppose that that anyone is
or is not speeding. Even if someone *does* speed, that does not, by itself,
mean he "disregard the law, common sense, and civility ..."

Common sense embodies a lot more than driving below the speed limit.

What is your definition of a "courteouse driver" that lets you equate
courteouse driving with driving below the speed limit?


>If I am doing 120 on the 401 and some nutcase comes screaming up
>behind me, weaving in and out of the lanes and slams his brakes on
>right behind me, which one of us is the dangerous one?
>

Depending on the traffic flow at the time, either of you can be the
dangerous culpit. For example, driving 120 on the leftmost express
lane when all the other lanes are packed and moving faster would be
consider by most poeple as dangerouse to others. For example, driving
an the left lane at the same speed as the right lane when someone else
wishes to pass would be considered dis-courteous and dangerous.

>According to Mr. Chow's statement, perhaps we should have
>everyone (including the dangerous, incompetent drivers, and people
>driving cars which are about to fall apart and are uncertifiable
>(althought the drivers are perhaps certifiable)) at the same HIGH
>speed...  
>

Please note that your conclusion does not necesaryly follow from
my statement. It is entirely possible for slow drivers to keep right
and fast drivers on the left lanes. Ontario already have such rules.

Stanley Chow        BitNet:  schow@BNR.CA
BNR		    UUCP:    ..!psuvax1!BNR.CA.bitnet!schow
(613) 763-2831		     ..!utgpu!bnr-vpa!bnr-fos!schow%bnr-public
I am just a small cog in a big machine. I don't represent nobody.