So many drivers don’t seem to understand how to merge properly… meaning
that either they are trying to aggressively cut in front of thru traffic, or
else thru traffic is trying to aggressively run merging traffic off the
road.
I’ve seen these problems daily during my commutes to and from work even when
they don’t actually happen to me. This also seems to occur at any speed,
regardless of whether the traffic speed is single-digit speeds in
bumper-to-bumper traffic, or free-flowing at (or above) the posted speed
limits.
So, let’s review–merging due to an onramp, lane reduction, or freeway
junction.
It’s clear to me that when traffic is merging from the right or the left due
to a junction, onramp, or lane reduction…
The thru traffic car must–
Maintain their current speed as much as possible without sudden speedups or
slowdowns, while at the same time, if they cannot pass a merging car in
safety before the merge point ends, they must back off and allow the car to
merge in front.
(However inconvenient it may be, *someone* has to even allow
the sloth merger in at some point.)
The merging car must–
Maintain a constant acceleration as much as possible without sudden
acceleration surges or slowdowns, while at the same time, they must not
attempt to cut in front of thru traffic when the merge point ends if a
suitable gap exists to merge behind the thru traffic car.
(This means that the sloth merger should not be cutting in just as soon as
the solid line ends and becomes the dashed line if there is more room to use
the merge lane until it starts to force-join into the thru traffic lane.)
In both cases, for both the merging car and the thru traffic car–
If either car is forced to suddenly change lanes or suddenly bail out over
to the shoulder of the road, because the cars become almost parallel to each
other and would otherwise collide, then the blame is as follows:
* If the merging traffic car’s rear bumper was ahead of the thru traffic
car at the point the merge lane lines ended, then the fault is with the thru
traffic car that tried to run the merger off the road. Since it could not
complete a pass in safety, it must back off.
* If the merging car’s front bumper was behind the thru traffic car at the
point the merge lane lines ended, then the fault is with the merging car
that tried to cut in front of the thru traffic car. Since it could not
complete a pass in safety, it must back off.
And then–
There’s the additional scenario of a car in the next lane over trying to cut
into the same gap that merging traffic is moving into, in that case, it is
perfectly clear that the fault goes 100% to the lane changer who merged into
the open gap that merging traffic was entering, since merging traffic
already has to deal with thru traffic.
Discuss…
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 13:50:23 -0700, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr."
<dwrous…@nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote:
>It’s clear to me that when traffic is merging from the right or the left due
>to a junction, onramp, or lane reduction…
>The thru traffic car must–
>Maintain their current speed as much as possible without sudden speedups or
>slowdowns, while at the same time, if they cannot pass a merging car in
>safety before the merge point ends, they must back off and allow the car to
>merge in front.
LOL!!
Actually, judging from their behavior, most MFFYs believe that through
traffic MUST allow the MFFY to merge IN FRONT of them ALWAYS. Sadly,
the JLEDIs that are already on the freeway are perfectly happy to slow
down and accommodate the MFFY’s wishes.
All of these incompetents have forgotten (or choose to ignore) the
actual law, which clearly states that the merging driver must yield
the right-of-way to any and all vehicles already on the freeway (or in
the lane that they wish to merge into). They act as if the fact that
their turn signal is some magic hand that will automatically clear out
a space for them to merge into.
Glossary (for the newbs):
MFFY == Me First, Fuck You
JLEDI == Just Let ‘Em Do It
Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> All of these incompetents have forgotten (or choose to ignore) the
> actual law, which clearly states that the merging driver must yield
> the right-of-way to any and all vehicles already on the freeway (or in
> the lane that they wish to merge into).
How about the fuckwads who, despite the ample space available, refuse to
move left to allow people to enter the highway? Whose fault is it if there
is a collision?
Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> So many drivers don’t seem to understand how to merge properly… meaning
> that either they are trying to aggressively cut in front of thru traffic, or
> else thru traffic is trying to aggressively run merging traffic off the
> road.
> I’ve seen these problems daily during my commutes to and from work even when
> they don’t actually happen to me. This also seems to occur at any speed,
> regardless of whether the traffic speed is single-digit speeds in
> bumper-to-bumper traffic, or free-flowing at (or above) the posted speed
> limits.
> So, let’s review–merging due to an onramp, lane reduction, or freeway
> junction.
> It’s clear to me that when traffic is merging from the right or the left due
> to a junction, onramp, or lane reduction…
> The thru traffic car must–
> Maintain their current speed as much as possible without sudden speedups or
> slowdowns,
good so far
> while at the same time, if they cannot pass a merging car in
> safety before the merge point ends, they must back off and allow the car to
> merge in front.
No, they don’t. The merging car must back off and take the next space
behind.
> (However inconvenient it may be, *someone* has to even allow
> the sloth merger in at some point.)
No, they don’t. They can sit on the shoulder until the heat death of
the universe for all I care.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> The merging car must–
> Maintain a constant acceleration as much as possible without sudden
> acceleration surges or slowdowns, while at the same time, they must not
> attempt to cut in front of thru traffic when the merge point ends if a
> suitable gap exists to merge behind the thru traffic car.
> (This means that the sloth merger should not be cutting in just as soon as
> the solid line ends and becomes the dashed line if there is more room to use
> the merge lane until it starts to force-join into the thru traffic lane.)
> In both cases, for both the merging car and the thru traffic car–
> If either car is forced to suddenly change lanes or suddenly bail out over
> to the shoulder of the road, because the cars become almost parallel to each
> other and would otherwise collide, then the blame is as follows:
It’s always the merging car’s fault, unless the through car accelerated
or braked. Period. All this talk of the through car having to back
off is the exact mindset that causes traffic to slow down and
eventually grind to a halt.
nate
223rem wrote:
> Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> > All of these incompetents have forgotten (or choose to ignore) the
> > actual law, which clearly states that the merging driver must yield
> > the right-of-way to any and all vehicles already on the freeway (or in
> > the lane that they wish to merge into).
> How about the fuckwads who, despite the ample space available, refuse to
> move left to allow people to enter the highway? Whose fault is it if there
> is a collision?
Still the fault of the merging vehicle. Through traffic has the right
of way and moving over a lane is an optional courtesy, not an
obligation.
nate
N8N wrote:
> It’s always the merging car’s fault, unless the through car accelerated
> or braked. Period. All this talk of the through car having to back
> off is the exact mindset that causes traffic to slow down and
> eventually grind to a halt.
What about this scenario:
Merger: rusted pickup or old pimped caddy
Through car: shiny new Lexus.
Who’s gonna blink first?
N8N wrote:
> Still the fault of the merging vehicle.
Legally, yes.
> Through traffic has the right
> of way and moving over a lane is an optional courtesy, not an obligation.
True, but it is very common behavior. Only a real asshole would not do that.
223rem wrote:
> N8N wrote:
>> Still the fault of the merging vehicle.
> Legally, yes.
>> Through traffic has the right
>> of way and moving over a lane is an optional courtesy, not an
>> obligation.
> True, but it is very common behavior. Only a real asshole would not do
> that.
Not necessarily. I have deliberately not moved over before because it
would have caused me to hold up faster, passing traffic. Around here,
it’s academic anyway because everyone seems to have given up on the
whole merging thing and very few people use the right lane at all.
nate
–
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
"223rem" <223…@sbcglobal.com> wrote in message
news:qjA6f.507201$xm3.20191@attbi_s21…
> Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> How about the fuckwads who, despite the ample space available, refuse to
> move left to allow people to enter the highway? Whose fault is it if
> there
> is a collision?
I was taught that, that was a courtesy one shouldn’t expect.
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 13:50:23 -0700, Daniel W. Rouse Jr.
<dwrous…@nethere.comNOSPAM> said the following in rec.autos.driving…
> Maintain their current speed as much as possible without sudden speedups or
> slowdowns, while at the same time, if they cannot pass a merging car in
> safety before the merge point ends, they must back off and allow the car to
> merge in front.
Cite, please?
–
"Take off that silly ass hat!"
–Chris Rock
In article <cdill19iguhv3oivblhtfqinf5o1kin…@4ax.com>, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> All of these incompetents have forgotten (or choose to ignore) the
> actual law, which clearly states that the merging driver must yield
> the right-of-way to any and all vehicles already on the freeway (or in
> the lane that they wish to merge into). They act as if the fact that
> their turn signal is some magic hand that will automatically clear out
> a space for them to merge into.
And when they encounter drivers like me that do not yield for them, they
often will become enraged.
In article <qjA6f.507201$xm3.20191@attbi_s21>, 223rem wrote:
> How about the fuckwads who, despite the ample space available, refuse to
> move left to allow people to enter the highway? Whose fault is it if there
> is a collision?
The ones who need a written invitation to merge? The ones who could merge
easily if they just put their right foot down?
I actually will speed up and just get ahead of them much of the time.
Unfortantly, sometimes it’s not safe to do so, and I get stuck behind
them.
The ones I hate, are the ones who have to try and force their way in
front of me despite there being a gap behind me aproximately as big as
the state of montana.
In article <qCA6f.267966$084.208866@attbi_s22>, 223rem wrote:
> Merger: rusted pickup or old pimped caddy
> Through car: shiny new Lexus.
> Who’s gonna blink first?
Once on the dan ryan, a lane was closed because of a car fire or
something and this dufus in a new audi tries to force his way in front of
the torqueless wonder car. I kid you not, this guy driving a brand new
audi was trying to get me to backdown to him by the threat of bent sheet
metal…. I’m driving the beater that I had less money into than half a
car payment for audi and he thinks that I was going to back down when I
had the right of way….
"N8N" <njna…@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1130026009.687840.230370@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com…
> Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
[snip...]
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> > The thru traffic car must–
> > Maintain their current speed as much as possible without sudden speedups
or
> > slowdowns,
> good so far
> > while at the same time, if they cannot pass a merging car in
> > safety before the merge point ends, they must back off and allow the car
to
> > merge in front.
> No, they don’t. The merging car must back off and take the next space
> behind.
That’s on the assumption that the car behind the merging car has allowed the
next space to exist, and that’s quite an assumption. Otherwise, it’s an
infinite loop…
The merging car must back off and take the next space behind, but that thru
traffic car won’t allow the merging car in, so the merging car must take the
next space behind, but that thru traffic car won’t allow the merging car
in… repeat until someone lets the merging car in, the merging car forces
its way in, the merging car bails out of the shoulder, or a collision
occurs.
At least with a join, where the newly formed lane may become an Exit Only
lane instead of a lane reduction, a merging car can exit the freeway and
then re-enter once again to try and merge onto the freeway once again. Of
course, if the join becomes a lane reduction, then the infinite loop can
occur once again.
> > (However inconvenient it may be, *someone* has to even allow
> > the sloth merger in at some point.)
> No, they don’t. They can sit on the shoulder until the heat death of
> the universe for all I care.
There is always a time where even thru traffic must back off, or even
better, just follow at far enough a following distance where the merging
traffic can just safely zipper in–either in front or behind as the merging
and thru traffic positions allow without sudden acceleration or sharp
braking.
As such, I maintain that any merging car forced onto the shoulder–that
wasn’t trying to intentionally cut ahead of thru traffic–has been
aggressively run off the road.
Others will obviously vary, but replace the white painted line with a
guardrail or concrete barrier, and the merging car is definitely being run
off the road and potentially into the barrier (until the merging car is
forced to cut in or brake).
Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> "N8N" <njna…@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1130026009.687840.230370@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com…
>>Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
> [snip...]
>>>(However inconvenient it may be, *someone* has to even allow
>>>the sloth merger in at some point.)
>>No, they don’t. They can sit on the shoulder until the heat death of
>>the universe for all I care.
> There is always a time where even thru traffic must back off,
No, there’s not. Period. Your mindset causes traffic jams and I refuse
to subscribe to it.
nate
–
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
In article <qjA6f.507201$xm3.20191@attbi_s21>,
223rem <223…@sbcglobal.com> wrote:
>Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>> All of these incompetents have forgotten (or choose to ignore) the
>> actual law, which clearly states that the merging driver must yield
>> the right-of-way to any and all vehicles already on the freeway (or in
>> the lane that they wish to merge into).
>How about the fuckwads who, despite the ample space available, refuse to
>move left to allow people to enter the highway? Whose fault is it if there
>is a collision?
If that’s the extent of their bad behavior, the merger’s. Those
already occupying the lane have the right of way, even if they’re
assholes.
If they do shit like deliberately matching speed with merging traffic
in attempt to block it, and they get hit, that’s a different story.
Hard to prove, though.
—
There’s no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
In article <vvCdnQrRxbGghsbeRVn…@comcast.com>,
Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVET…@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <qjA6f.507201$xm3.20191@attbi_s21>, 223rem wrote:
>> How about the fuckwads who, despite the ample space available, refuse to
>> move left to allow people to enter the highway? Whose fault is it if there
>> is a collision?
>The ones who need a written invitation to merge? The ones who could merge
>easily if they just put their right foot down?
On either pedal, sometimes. I wonder if the people who can’t merge
when there’s even one car in the right lane are the same people who
like to drive side by side with other cars on the through lanes.
—
There’s no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
"Nate Nagel" <njna…@flycast.net> wrote in message
news:1130063787.f42ec8fc295c9a685963dfb7c8ad8d08@teranews…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
> > "N8N" <njna…@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1130026009.687840.230370@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com…
> >>Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
> > [snip...]
> >>>(However inconvenient it may be, *someone* has to even allow
> >>>the sloth merger in at some point.)
> >>No, they don’t. They can sit on the shoulder until the heat death of
> >>the universe for all I care.
> > There is always a time where even thru traffic must back off,
> No, there’s not. Period. Your mindset causes traffic jams and I refuse
> to subscribe to it.
Your opinion, of course. And I have mine.
Thru traffic having the right of way doesn’t mean that EVERY thru traffic
car can block out a merging car. Otherwise, those yellow diamond warning
signs with the merging traffic symbol wouldn’t even be there. So yes,
someone has to give way, and since the mindset is that the merging car can
back off and take the next gap–who is going to create that next gap?
Anyway, I have observed that during peak rush hour traffic to and from work,
the traffic comes to a dead stop (read: ZERO mph) when thru traffic and
merging traffic do not cooperate and traffic hits a point where someone must
give way, but no one wants to let a merger into the lane. Once past the
merge point, traffic resumes speed until the next merge point, where the
ZERO mph issue occurs once again.
Now, if I’m already in the #2 or #3 lane–having successfully merged
earlier–it’s not a problem I have to deal with as far as merging goes, but
the slowdown becomes everyone’s problem! And ramp signals aren’t even
effective when thru traffic insists on closing the merge gap that the signal
indicated was available when it turned green.
In contrast, when traffic cooperates such that merging traffic and thru
traffic zipper in rather effectively, the vehicles merely slow down for just
a bit (bmaybe from a free-flowing 65mph to about 45mph), but they don’t slow
down to ZERO mph. Following a bit further back under those traffic
conditions (read: 2 to 3 second following distance and not so close that the
vehicle in front’s rear tires aren’t even visible) means just a light usage
of the brakes to decelerate, as opposed to having to slow down to a complete
stop.
Personally, I’ll take slow and go traffic, where the flow of traffic is
constantly moving, over stop and go traffic which wastes more time and
expensive gasoline than slow and go traffic.
"Paul." <Do_not_reply_here@reply_thru_the_group.org> wrote
> On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 13:50:23 -0700, Daniel W. Rouse Jr.
>> Maintain their current speed as much as possible without sudden speedups
>> or
>> slowdowns, while at the same time, if they cannot pass a merging car in
>> safety before the merge point ends, they must back off and allow the car
>> to
>> merge in front.
> Cite, please?
There is no need to cite a law. It is a logical consequence of:
1) mergers have to yield
2) a steady speed at the prevailing speed is safest, and is called
out time and time again in all driving manuals.
3) the manuals also say: "make room if it’s safe and you don’t
slow traffic".
QED
FloydR
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Floyd Rogers wrote:
> "Paul." <Do_not_reply_here@reply_thru_the_group.org> wrote
>> On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 13:50:23 -0700, Daniel W. Rouse Jr.
>>> Maintain their current speed as much as possible without sudden
>>> speedups or
>>> slowdowns, while at the same time, if they cannot pass a merging car in
>>> safety before the merge point ends, they must back off and allow the
>>> car to
>>> merge in front.
>> Cite, please?
> There is no need to cite a law. It is a logical consequence of:
> 1) mergers have to yield
> 2) a steady speed at the prevailing speed is safest, and is called
> out time and time again in all driving manuals.
> 3) the manuals also say: "make room if it’s safe and you don’t
> slow traffic".
> QED
> FloydR
The last is a suggestion, not a law.
nate
–
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> "Nate Nagel" <njna…@flycast.net> wrote in message
> news:1130063787.f42ec8fc295c9a685963dfb7c8ad8d08@teranews…
>>Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
>>>"N8N" <njna…@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1130026009.687840.230370@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com…
>>>>Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
>>>[snip...]
>>>>>(However inconvenient it may be, *someone* has to even allow
>>>>>the sloth merger in at some point.)
>>>>No, they don’t. They can sit on the shoulder until the heat death of
>>>>the universe for all I care.
>>>There is always a time where even thru traffic must back off,
>>No, there’s not. Period. Your mindset causes traffic jams and I refuse
>>to subscribe to it.
> Your opinion, of course. And I have mine.
> Thru traffic having the right of way doesn’t mean that EVERY thru traffic
> car can block out a merging car.
Sure it does, so long as "block out" means keeping a constant speed and
course.
> Otherwise, those yellow diamond warning
> signs with the merging traffic symbol wouldn’t even be there. So yes,
> someone has to give way, and since the mindset is that the merging car can
> back off and take the next gap–who is going to create that next gap?
There is a gap there. It’s between the cars going by. I have very
seldom seen traffic moving at above a crawl where it was literally
impossible to merge in between two cars. Now you may have to take a
space a little shorter than the "recommended safe following distance" in
exceptionally heavy traffic, but just take the space and keep moving.
You’ll be able to space yourself back before the next onramp, as will
the guy behind you.
> Anyway, I have observed that during peak rush hour traffic to and from work,
> the traffic comes to a dead stop (read: ZERO mph) when thru traffic and
> merging traffic do not cooperate and traffic hits a point where someone must
> give way, but no one wants to let a merger into the lane. Once past the
> merge point, traffic resumes speed until the next merge point, where the
> ZERO mph issue occurs once again.
I’ve seen this happen MORE often when people "let them in."
> Now, if I’m already in the #2 or #3 lane–having successfully merged
> earlier–it’s not a problem I have to deal with as far as merging goes, but
> the slowdown becomes everyone’s problem!
Yes, and that’s why I don’t let in slow mergers.
> And ramp signals aren’t even
> effective when thru traffic insists on closing the merge gap that the signal
> indicated was available when it turned green.
Again, how slow is traffic going to really slam the door on someone?
less than 20 MPH? at that point it doesn’t matter what you do. Around
here when things get really, truly stop and go, people tend to treat a
merge as a zipper, which works after a fashion but has the drawback of
allowing more people onto an already congested highway. But everyone
does eventually get where they’re going. But what I’m talking about is
when everyone’s doing 65-70 MPH even in the rightmost lane and some
jackass can’t adjust his speed to make a hole. Even at a 1-sec.
following distance, at 65 MPH a merger still can squeeze in between cars
as long as everyone holds their position. If you slow down to let him
in, you’re an even bigger ass than he is. Better to gradually space
yourself back out before the next onramp, rather than all at once to
"let someone in."
> In contrast, when traffic cooperates such that merging traffic and thru
> traffic zipper in rather effectively, the vehicles merely slow down for just
> a bit (bmaybe from a free-flowing 65mph to about 45mph), but they don’t slow
> down to ZERO mph.
Yes, they do, if it’s close to the tipping point. I see it happen all
the time. It starts with slowing to 45, but eventually it slowly grinds
to a halt.
> Following a bit further back under those traffic
> conditions (read: 2 to 3 second following distance and not so close that the
> vehicle in front’s rear tires aren’t even visible) means just a light usage
> of the brakes to decelerate, as opposed to having to slow down to a complete
> stop.
DON’T SLOW DOWN ON THE GODDAMNED HIGHWAY UNLESS SOMEONE ACTUALLY FORCES
YOU TO BRAKE. HOW HARD IS IT TO UNDERSTAND? Geez, if we could just get
it through the heads of the people around here, traffic would be SO much
nicer. We have nothing like the volume of other major cities (Boston,
NYC, Chicago, etc.) but because people drive like they really don’t care
whether or not they reach their destination, and their instinctual
reaction to anything they don’t understand or find unusual or
interesting is to jam on the brakes (including a cop pulling someone
else over, or some poor schmuck changing a tire on the shoulder well out
of the way, or some kind of incident on the other side of the Jersey
barrier) it is extraordinarily difficult to get anywhere in anything
resembling an expedient manner, and it’s hard on your car and on fuel as
well as you’re constantly accelerating, braking, accelerating, braking,
etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum. Just keep the hammer down!
Can we import some Boston drivers for Driver’s Ed teachers? PLEASE????
> Personally, I’ll take slow and go traffic, where the flow of traffic is
> constantly moving, over stop and go traffic which wastes more time and
> expensive gasoline than slow and go traffic.
Absolutely! But my experiences is it’s drivers like you that make
traffic go stop and go; and around here, there’s really no necessity for
even what you call "slow and go" except a few spots – yet it happens
everywhere unnecessarily, again, because of drivers like you. Sorry,
but I cannot agree with your theory about letting mergers in. IME, it
just doesn’t work out.
Finally, before you accuse me of being unkind t omy fellow motorists – I
don’t feel that I am being unkind at all, I just act like I would like
other drivers to act. When I am merging in, I do my very best to slip
into an existing hole with minimal interference with other motorists. I
don’t want them to slow down for me; for all they know I might be
planning to lift off and slip in behind them. I just expect others to
act similarly. If they have been taught to expect "courtesy" from other
drivers in the form of slowing down to let them in, all that says is
that they have been taught by and surrounded by piss poor drivers.
nate
–
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
"Daniel W. Rouse Jr." <dwrous…@nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote in message > The
thru traffic car must–
> The merging car must–
> Maintain a constant acceleration as much as possible without sudden
> acceleration surges or slowdowns, while at the same time, they must not
> attempt to cut in front of thru traffic when the merge point ends if a
> suitable gap exists to merge behind the thru traffic car.
Someone explain to me this phenomenon I never encountered in the East, but
now contemplate in wonder here in AZ–the stoplight at the end of the
onramp. Just as you get your speed going so you can blend right into
freeway traffic, you have to come to a dead stop for a one-second stoplight.
Then try to build speed up again in a very short space to blend into the
freeway. I don’t see this staggering of the onramp traffic making the
right-hand lane any less congested or traffic flow any more smoothly. Just
a lot of slow cars and a lot of brake lights. All the time.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Alice, SWMBO wrote:
> "Daniel W. Rouse Jr." <dwrous…@nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote in message > The
> thru traffic car must–
>>The merging car must–
>>Maintain a constant acceleration as much as possible without sudden
>>acceleration surges or slowdowns, while at the same time, they must not
>>attempt to cut in front of thru traffic when the merge point ends if a
>>suitable gap exists to merge behind the thru traffic car.
> Someone explain to me this phenomenon I never encountered in the East, but
> now contemplate in wonder here in AZ–the stoplight at the end of the
> onramp. Just as you get your speed going so you can blend right into
> freeway traffic, you have to come to a dead stop for a one-second stoplight.
> Then try to build speed up again in a very short space to blend into the
> freeway. I don’t see this staggering of the onramp traffic making the
> right-hand lane any less congested or traffic flow any more smoothly. Just
> a lot of slow cars and a lot of brake lights. All the time.
I’ve seen stop signs at the end of onramps in PA… I just blow through
them, as I figure the risk of getting a ticket is far less than the risk
of running out of onramp before I’m up to speed. I’m not sure what the
point really is…
nate
–
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 22:55:40 -0400, Nate Nagel <njna…@flycast.net> said
the following in rec.autos.driving…
> I’ve seen stop signs at the end of onramps in PA… I just blow through
> them, as I figure the risk of getting a ticket is far less than the risk
> of running out of onramp before I’m up to speed. I’m not sure what the
> point really is…
Another revenue stream for the state?
–
—
"No one goes to Hooters for wings."
–Chris Rock
"Alice, SWMBO" <nos…@neverneverneverspam.com> wrote in message
news:z%X6f.10700$gj1.7497@fed1read05…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> "Daniel W. Rouse Jr." <dwrous…@nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote in message > The
> thru traffic car must–
> > The merging car must–
> > Maintain a constant acceleration as much as possible without sudden
> > acceleration surges or slowdowns, while at the same time, they must not
> > attempt to cut in front of thru traffic when the merge point ends if a
> > suitable gap exists to merge behind the thru traffic car.
> Someone explain to me this phenomenon I never encountered in the East, but
> now contemplate in wonder here in AZ–the stoplight at the end of the
> onramp. Just as you get your speed going so you can blend right into
> freeway traffic, you have to come to a dead stop for a one-second
stoplight.
> Then try to build speed up again in a very short space to blend into the
> freeway. I don’t see this staggering of the onramp traffic making the
> right-hand lane any less congested or traffic flow any more smoothly.
Just
> a lot of slow cars and a lot of brake lights. All the time.
It’s a Ramp Signal.
Basically, the signal–along with sensors in lanes on the
freeways–regulates merging traffic so that it’s one car at a time or two
cars at a time with some sort of gap in between, to help with smoother
merging (or at least, that’s what one would hope would occur).
Supposedly, when the signal is red, there isn’t a suitable gap for a vehicle
to merge into, which is why the next merging vehicles(s) are kept stopped.
Then, once the light turns green, there is supposed to be an available gap
in thru traffic to merge into (assuming, of course, that someone hasn’t
already increased speed to close that gap).
For a one car per green ramp signal, one will see a red light/green light…
pattern for regulating merging vehicles. For a two car per green ramp
signal, one will see a green light/yellow light/red light… pattern for
merging vehicles.
As long as thru traffic isn’t closing gaps or merging traffic isn’t running
ramp signal red lights, the ramp signals actually work quite well.
Of course, if thru traffic closes gaps or merging traffic runs ramp signal
red lights, traffic goes all the way down to single digit speeds before
finally coming to a complete stop.
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 17:03:59 GMT, laura bush – VEHICULAR HOMICIDE
<xeton2…@yahoo.com> was understood to have stated the following:
>There are even those who do it because they don’t want anyone to smell
>the alcohol on their breath.
>In any case, numerous motorists involved in collisions are taking the
>low road out — far away from the crash site. And it’s mostly because
>they have something to hide from authorities.
It’s called "The Kennedy Maneuver." Hey, if it works for dimocrapic
senators, it should work for the common folk.
–
"Do we operate under a system of equal justice under law? Or is there one system for the average citizen and another for the high and mighty?" ~ Senator Ted Kennedy, 1973
—
When asked if Sentator Kennedy would consider a Presidential Nomination for the next election, Ted responded by stating "I’ll drive off that bridge when I come to it."
—
Kennedy to Search Iraqi Rivers for WMD
by Scott Ott
(2003-01-21) — Senator Edward "Ted" Kennedy, D-MA, offered to help the U.N. weapons inspectors by personally searching the bottoms of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers for canisters of gas or biological agents.
The Senator, who had some experience diving on a submerged metal object in 1969, said, "Each citizen must do what he can to support the effort to disarm Saddam. I’m going to see if I can get to the bottom of this thing…as it were. I’m hoping to come up with something…uh…again, as it were."
Sen. Kennedy declined to discuss the specifics of his previous diving experience.
Ted ‘waddya mean you are pregnant and can not swim’ Kennedy wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 17:03:59 GMT, laura bush – VEHICULAR HOMICIDE
> <xeton2…@yahoo.com> was understood to have stated the following:
> >There are even those who do it because they don’t want anyone to smell
> >the alcohol on their breath.
> >In any case, numerous motorists involved in collisions are taking the
> >low road out — far away from the crash site. And it’s mostly because
> >they have something to hide from authorities.
> It’s called "The Kennedy Maneuver." Hey, if it works for dimocrapic
> senators, it should work for the common folk.
Yup and he was so charged and pled guilty. Took his medicine like a
man.
"Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" <xeton2…@yahoo.com> writes:
>Ted ‘waddya mean you are pregnant and can not swim’ Kennedy wrote:
>> >In any case, numerous motorists involved in collisions are taking the
>> >low road out — far away from the crash site. And it’s mostly because
>> >they have something to hide from authorities.
>> It’s called "The Kennedy Maneuver." Hey, if it works for dimocrapic
>> senators, it should work for the common folk.
>Yup and he was so charged and pled guilty. Took his medicine like a
>man.
Haha! He should have been charged with leaving the scene of a fatal
accident as well as DWI at least, but actually gets charged with a slap
on the wrist, and you say he took the slap on the wrist like a man? Too
funny!
Imagine if the punishments you demand for anyone causing a fatal accident
were applied to Fatboy, he’d still be in jail (if not executed), but here
you are, so proud he took a slap on the wrist "like a man". Like a worm
is more like it.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Michael Moroney wrote:
> "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" <xeton2…@yahoo.com> writes:
>>Ted ‘waddya mean you are pregnant and can not swim’ Kennedy wrote:
>>>>In any case, numerous motorists involved in collisions are taking the
>>>>low road out — far away from the crash site. And it’s mostly because
>>>>they have something to hide from authorities.
>>>It’s called "The Kennedy Maneuver." Hey, if it works for dimocrapic
>>>senators, it should work for the common folk.
>>Yup and he was so charged and pled guilty. Took his medicine like a
>>man.
> Haha! He should have been charged with leaving the scene of a fatal
> accident as well as DWI at least, but actually gets charged with a slap
> on the wrist, and you say he took the slap on the wrist like a man? Too
> funny!
> Imagine if the punishments you demand for anyone causing a fatal accident
> were applied to Fatboy, he’d still be in jail (if not executed), but here
> you are, so proud he took a slap on the wrist "like a man". Like a worm
> is more like it.
He really should have gone through a lengthy trial, so it would
have been proven that it was impossible for him to be in the car,
get out of it and do everything else. The trial would finally
prove that he wasn’t even in the car, and that this was a solo
accident. And the nazis would have to find something else to
crow about, so they won’t have to face their own failures.
Ted ‘waddya mean you are pregnant and can not swim’ Kennedy:
> It’s called "The Kennedy Maneuver." Hey, if it works for dimocrapic
> senators, it should work for the common folk.
You keep forgetting: there are two sets of laws – one for the elites
(like that garbage scow kennedy) and another much more strict for the
rest of us.
Laura Bush murdered her boy friend:
> Yup and he was so charged and pled guilty. Took his medicine like a
> man.
BBBAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!
The only thing that worthless cocksucker took poor Mary Jo’s life inorder
to save his political career. If that faggot had been dealt with
appropriately, he never would have been able to run for senate again as
he would be a felon himself.
You really are a stupid fuck sometimes, ya know that???
"Michael Moroney" <moro…@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
news:djelp3$bfs$1@pcls4.std.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" <xeton2…@yahoo.com> writes:
> >Ted ‘waddya mean you are pregnant and can not swim’ Kennedy wrote:
> >> >In any case, numerous motorists involved in collisions are taking the
> >> >low road out — far away from the crash site. And it’s mostly because
> >> >they have something to hide from authorities.
> >> It’s called "The Kennedy Maneuver." Hey, if it works for dimocrapic
> >> senators, it should work for the common folk.
> >Yup and he was so charged and pled guilty. Took his medicine like a
> >man.
> Haha! He should have been charged with leaving the scene of a fatal
> accident as well as DWI at least, but actually gets charged with a slap
> on the wrist, and you say he took the slap on the wrist like a man? Too
> funny!
> Imagine if the punishments you demand for anyone causing a fatal accident
> were applied to Fatboy, he’d still be in jail (if not executed), but here
> you are, so proud he took a slap on the wrist "like a man". Like a worm
> is more like it.
Let’s not forget the almost 2000 dead Americans thanks to dubya’s lies of
WMD and "imminent danger from Iraq" to the US. He could have been drunk when
he "thought" that one up too!
"SOME BAD HAT HARRY" <badhatha…@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:FRM6f.328$ZA3.81779@monger.newsread.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> "Michael Moroney" <moro…@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
> news:djelp3$bfs$1@pcls4.std.com…
>> "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" <xeton2…@yahoo.com> writes:
>> >Ted ‘waddya mean you are pregnant and can not swim’ Kennedy wrote:
>> >> >In any case, numerous motorists involved in collisions are taking the
>> >> >low road out — far away from the crash site. And it’s mostly because
>> >> >they have something to hide from authorities.
>> >> It’s called "The Kennedy Maneuver." Hey, if it works for dimocrapic
>> >> senators, it should work for the common folk.
>> >Yup and he was so charged and pled guilty. Took his medicine like a
>> >man.
>> Haha! He should have been charged with leaving the scene of a fatal
>> accident as well as DWI at least, but actually gets charged with a slap
>> on the wrist, and you say he took the slap on the wrist like a man? Too
>> funny!
>> Imagine if the punishments you demand for anyone causing a fatal accident
>> were applied to Fatboy, he’d still be in jail (if not executed), but here
>> you are, so proud he took a slap on the wrist "like a man". Like a worm
>> is more like it.
> Let’s not forget the almost 2000 dead Americans thanks to dubya’s lies of
> WMD and "imminent danger from Iraq" to the US. He could have been drunk
> when
> he "thought" that one up too!
If you are going to blame these lives on Bush then you will have to blame
Clinton for the thousands of lives by his inaction around the world.
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 10:49:40 -0400, in misc.transport.road
"Bert Robbins" <sc…@you.com> wrote in
<s6udnb_Y7teePsbeRVn…@comcast.com>:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>"SOME BAD HAT HARRY" <badhatha…@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:FRM6f.328$ZA3.81779@monger.newsread.com…
>> "Michael Moroney" <moro…@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>> news:djelp3$bfs$1@pcls4.std.com…
>>> "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" <xeton2…@yahoo.com> writes:
>>> >Ted ‘waddya mean you are pregnant and can not swim’ Kennedy wrote:
>>> >> >In any case, numerous motorists involved in collisions are taking the
>>> >> >low road out — far away from the crash site. And it’s mostly because
>>> >> >they have something to hide from authorities.
>>> >> It’s called "The Kennedy Maneuver." Hey, if it works for dimocrapic
>>> >> senators, it should work for the common folk.
>>> >Yup and he was so charged and pled guilty. Took his medicine like a
>>> >man.
>>> Haha! He should have been charged with leaving the scene of a fatal
>>> accident as well as DWI at least, but actually gets charged with a slap
>>> on the wrist, and you say he took the slap on the wrist like a man? Too
>>> funny!
>>> Imagine if the punishments you demand for anyone causing a fatal accident
>>> were applied to Fatboy, he’d still be in jail (if not executed), but here
>>> you are, so proud he took a slap on the wrist "like a man". Like a worm
>>> is more like it.
>> Let’s not forget the almost 2000 dead Americans thanks to dubya’s lies of
>> WMD and "imminent danger from Iraq" to the US. He could have been drunk
>> when
>> he "thought" that one up too!
>If you are going to blame these lives on Bush then you will have to blame
>Clinton for the thousands of lives by his inaction around the world.
Is it America’s job to invade every country that has a less than perfect
government?
"David Jensen" <da…@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:219nl1t0u6rn5bl85ivs42ro6e6fjr5q5a@4ax.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 10:49:40 -0400, in misc.transport.road
> "Bert Robbins" <sc…@you.com> wrote in
> <s6udnb_Y7teePsbeRVn…@comcast.com>:
>>"SOME BAD HAT HARRY" <badhatha…@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:FRM6f.328$ZA3.81779@monger.newsread.com…
>>> "Michael Moroney" <moro…@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>>> news:djelp3$bfs$1@pcls4.std.com…
>>>> "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" <xeton2…@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>> >Ted ‘waddya mean you are pregnant and can not swim’ Kennedy wrote:
>>>> >> >In any case, numerous motorists involved in collisions are taking
>>>> >> >the
>>>> >> >low road out — far away from the crash site. And it’s mostly
>>>> >> >because
>>>> >> >they have something to hide from authorities.
>>>> >> It’s called "The Kennedy Maneuver." Hey, if it works for dimocrapic
>>>> >> senators, it should work for the common folk.
>>>> >Yup and he was so charged and pled guilty. Took his medicine like a
>>>> >man.
>>>> Haha! He should have been charged with leaving the scene of a fatal
>>>> accident as well as DWI at least, but actually gets charged with a slap
>>>> on the wrist, and you say he took the slap on the wrist like a man?
>>>> Too
>>>> funny!
>>>> Imagine if the punishments you demand for anyone causing a fatal
>>>> accident
>>>> were applied to Fatboy, he’d still be in jail (if not executed), but
>>>> here
>>>> you are, so proud he took a slap on the wrist "like a man". Like a
>>>> worm
>>>> is more like it.
>>> Let’s not forget the almost 2000 dead Americans thanks to dubya’s lies
>>> of
>>> WMD and "imminent danger from Iraq" to the US. He could have been drunk
>>> when
>>> he "thought" that one up too!
>>If you are going to blame these lives on Bush then you will have to blame
>>Clinton for the thousands of lives by his inaction around the world.
> Is it America’s job to invade every country that has a less than perfect
> government?
If it is in our national interest.
"Bert Robbins" <sc…@you.com> wrote in message
news:s6udnb_Y7teePsbeRVn-jw@comcast.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> "SOME BAD HAT HARRY" <badhatha…@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:FRM6f.328$ZA3.81779@monger.newsread.com…
> > "Michael Moroney" <moro…@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
> > news:djelp3$bfs$1@pcls4.std.com…
> >> "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" <xeton2…@yahoo.com> writes:
> >> >Ted ‘waddya mean you are pregnant and can not swim’ Kennedy wrote:
> >> >> >In any case, numerous motorists involved in collisions are taking
the
> >> >> >low road out — far away from the crash site. And it’s mostly
because
> >> >> >they have something to hide from authorities.
> >> >> It’s called "The Kennedy Maneuver." Hey, if it works for dimocrapic
> >> >> senators, it should work for the common folk.
> >> >Yup and he was so charged and pled guilty. Took his medicine like a
> >> >man.
> >> Haha! He should have been charged with leaving the scene of a fatal
> >> accident as well as DWI at least, but actually gets charged with a slap
> >> on the wrist, and you say he took the slap on the wrist like a man?
Too
> >> funny!
> >> Imagine if the punishments you demand for anyone causing a fatal
accident
> >> were applied to Fatboy, he’d still be in jail (if not executed), but
here
> >> you are, so proud he took a slap on the wrist "like a man". Like a
worm
> >> is more like it.
> > Let’s not forget the almost 2000 dead Americans thanks to dubya’s lies
of
> > WMD and "imminent danger from Iraq" to the US. He could have been drunk
> > when
> > he "thought" that one up too!
> If you are going to blame these lives on Bush then you will have to blame
> Clinton for the thousands of lives by his inaction around the world.
The rules were different under Clinton……he followed UN mandates.
Bullshit too on the "urban legend" that he had saddam in his sights and
"refused to pull the trigger." I heard a general speak about this and said
it was false on all counts. We "might" have had someone that resembled
saddam in the sights of a drone, which was unarmed, but the military,
following the law of the land could not have pulled the trigger even if
there was a trigger. He didn’t bully other countries into carrying out a
personal agenda with a despot who his father should have put away years
earlier. Now about we blame poppa bush for allowing saddam to be free when a
real coalition was only 50 miles from baghdad when it was announced "their
job was done." Stormin’ Norman opposed this as I’m sure you’re aware from
his book and thought we "left the job undone."
All that aside, you agree that we went into iraq under the correct pretenses
and you still condone the war then I gather? I guess you’re still blaming
Clinton for Somalia even though the military on the ground made that
afternoon call, on their own, against all logic, too?
"Bert Robbins" <sc…@you.com> wrote in message
news:Yq2dnbErvvkrO8beRVn-hA@comcast.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> "David Jensen" <da…@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
> news:219nl1t0u6rn5bl85ivs42ro6e6fjr5q5a@4ax.com…
> > On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 10:49:40 -0400, in misc.transport.road
> > "Bert Robbins" <sc…@you.com> wrote in
> > <s6udnb_Y7teePsbeRVn…@comcast.com>:
> >>"SOME BAD HAT HARRY" <badhatha…@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>news:FRM6f.328$ZA3.81779@monger.newsread.com…
> >>> "Michael Moroney" <moro…@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:djelp3$bfs$1@pcls4.std.com…
> >>>> "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" <xeton2…@yahoo.com> writes:
> >>>> >Ted ‘waddya mean you are pregnant and can not swim’ Kennedy wrote:
> >>>> >> >In any case, numerous motorists involved in collisions are taking
> >>>> >> >the
> >>>> >> >low road out — far away from the crash site. And it’s mostly
> >>>> >> >because
> >>>> >> >they have something to hide from authorities.
> >>>> >> It’s called "The Kennedy Maneuver." Hey, if it works for
dimocrapic
> >>>> >> senators, it should work for the common folk.
> >>>> >Yup and he was so charged and pled guilty. Took his medicine like a
> >>>> >man.
> >>>> Haha! He should have been charged with leaving the scene of a fatal
> >>>> accident as well as DWI at least, but actually gets charged with a
slap
> >>>> on the wrist, and you say he took the slap on the wrist like a man?
> >>>> Too
> >>>> funny!
> >>>> Imagine if the punishments you demand for anyone causing a fatal
> >>>> accident
> >>>> were applied to Fatboy, he’d still be in jail (if not executed), but
> >>>> here
> >>>> you are, so proud he took a slap on the wrist "like a man". Like a
> >>>> worm
> >>>> is more like it.
> >>> Let’s not forget the almost 2000 dead Americans thanks to dubya’s lies
> >>> of
> >>> WMD and "imminent danger from Iraq" to the US. He could have been
drunk
> >>> when
> >>> he "thought" that one up too!
> >>If you are going to blame these lives on Bush then you will have to
blame
> >>Clinton for the thousands of lives by his inaction around the world.
> > Is it America’s job to invade every country that has a less than perfect
> > government?
> If it is in our national interest.
And is it SOP to decide national interest on an agenda that, through exposed
memos, was in the planning stages the second week of bush’s new
administration in 2001? What happens if we "rush to war" without knowing all
the facts and speed up the process so that we WON’T have all the facts? You
must agree that noone should ever enter a war without and exit strategy,
don’t you? Please, in light of all the hindsight, you don’t see this as any
other than a mistake?
"SOME BAD HAT HARRY" <badhatha…@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:NLN6f.332$ZA3.82237@monger.newsread.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> "Bert Robbins" <sc…@you.com> wrote in message
> news:Yq2dnbErvvkrO8beRVn-hA@comcast.com…
>> "David Jensen" <da…@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
>> news:219nl1t0u6rn5bl85ivs42ro6e6fjr5q5a@4ax.com…
>> > On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 10:49:40 -0400, in misc.transport.road
>> > "Bert Robbins" <sc…@you.com> wrote in
>> > <s6udnb_Y7teePsbeRVn…@comcast.com>:
>> >>"SOME BAD HAT HARRY" <badhatha…@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >>news:FRM6f.328$ZA3.81779@monger.newsread.com…
>> >>> "Michael Moroney" <moro…@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>> >>> news:djelp3$bfs$1@pcls4.std.com…
>> >>>> "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" <xeton2…@yahoo.com> writes:
>> >>>> >Ted ‘waddya mean you are pregnant and can not swim’ Kennedy wrote:
>> >>>> >> >In any case, numerous motorists involved in collisions are
>> >>>> >> >taking
>> >>>> >> >the
>> >>>> >> >low road out — far away from the crash site. And it’s mostly
>> >>>> >> >because
>> >>>> >> >they have something to hide from authorities.
>> >>>> >> It’s called "The Kennedy Maneuver." Hey, if it works for
> dimocrapic
>> >>>> >> senators, it should work for the common folk.
>> >>>> >Yup and he was so charged and pled guilty. Took his medicine like
>> >>>> >a
>> >>>> >man.
>> >>>> Haha! He should have been charged with leaving the scene of a fatal
>> >>>> accident as well as DWI at least, but actually gets charged with a
> slap
>> >>>> on the wrist, and you say he took the slap on the wrist like a man?
>> >>>> Too
>> >>>> funny!
>> >>>> Imagine if the punishments you demand for anyone causing a fatal
>> >>>> accident
>> >>>> were applied to Fatboy, he’d still be in jail (if not executed), but
>> >>>> here
>> >>>> you are, so proud he took a slap on the wrist "like a man". Like a
>> >>>> worm
>> >>>> is more like it.
>> >>> Let’s not forget the almost 2000 dead Americans thanks to dubya’s
>> >>> lies
>> >>> of
>> >>> WMD and "imminent danger from Iraq" to the US. He could have been
> drunk
>> >>> when
>> >>> he "thought" that one up too!
>> >>If you are going to blame these lives on Bush then you will have to
> blame
>> >>Clinton for the thousands of lives by his inaction around the world.
>> > Is it America’s job to invade every country that has a less than
>> > perfect
>> > government?
>> If it is in our national interest.
> And is it SOP to decide national interest on an agenda that, through
> exposed
> memos, was in the planning stages the second week of bush’s new
> administration in 2001? What happens if we "rush to war" without knowing
> all
> the facts and speed up the process so that we WON’T have all the facts?
> You
> must agree that noone should ever enter a war without and exit strategy,
> don’t you? Please, in light of all the hindsight, you don’t see this as
> any
> other than a mistake?
The Pentagon has for many years developed plans to invade each and every
country on the face of the earth. And, these plans are updated on a periodic
basis.
Rush to war? Saddam’s Iraq was under UN sanctions that the UN would not
enforce so we enforced them. There was a 10 year "rush" to war. A war is not
a start-up business and an exit strategy is not always needed. What is our
exit strategy for Japan and Germany, we are still there some 60 years later?
Invading Iraq was not a mistake then and is not a mistake now. You need to
do a little more research on our national interests in the long term before
deciding if invading Iraq was a mistake.
"Bert Robbins" <sc…@you.com> wrote in message
news:Haqdnaz_w5ZhNsbeRVn-qw@comcast.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> "SOME BAD HAT HARRY" <badhatha…@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:NLN6f.332$ZA3.82237@monger.newsread.com…
> > "Bert Robbins" <sc…@you.com> wrote in message
> > news:Yq2dnbErvvkrO8beRVn-hA@comcast.com…
> >> "David Jensen" <da…@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
> >> news:219nl1t0u6rn5bl85ivs42ro6e6fjr5q5a@4ax.com…
> >> > On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 10:49:40 -0400, in misc.transport.road
> >> > "Bert Robbins" <sc…@you.com> wrote in
> >> > <s6udnb_Y7teePsbeRVn…@comcast.com>:
> >> >>"SOME BAD HAT HARRY" <badhatha…@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >>news:FRM6f.328$ZA3.81779@monger.newsread.com…
> >> >>> "Michael Moroney" <moro…@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in
message
> >> >>> news:djelp3$bfs$1@pcls4.std.com…
> >> >>>> "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" <xeton2…@yahoo.com> writes:
> >> >>>> >Ted ‘waddya mean you are pregnant and can not swim’ Kennedy
wrote:
> >> >>>> >> >In any case, numerous motorists involved in collisions are
> >> >>>> >> >taking
> >> >>>> >> >the
> >> >>>> >> >low road out — far away from the crash site. And it’s mostly
> >> >>>> >> >because
> >> >>>> >> >they have something to hide from authorities.
> >> >>>> >> It’s called "The Kennedy Maneuver." Hey, if it works for
> > dimocrapic
> >> >>>> >> senators, it should work for the common folk.
> >> >>>> >Yup and he was so charged and pled guilty. Took his medicine
like
> >> >>>> >a
> >> >>>> >man.
> >> >>>> Haha! He should have been charged with leaving the scene of a
fatal
> >> >>>> accident as well as DWI at least, but actually gets charged with a
> > slap
> >> >>>> on the wrist, and you say he took the slap on the wrist like a
man?
> >> >>>> Too
> >> >>>> funny!
> >> >>>> Imagine if the punishments you demand for anyone causing a fatal
> >> >>>> accident
> >> >>>> were applied to Fatboy, he’d still be in jail (if not executed),
but
> >> >>>> here
> >> >>>> you are, so proud he took a slap on the wrist "like a man". Like
a
> >> >>>> worm
> >> >>>> is more like it.
> >> >>> Let’s not forget the almost 2000 dead Americans thanks to dubya’s
> >> >>> lies
> >> >>> of
> >> >>> WMD and "imminent danger from Iraq" to the US. He could have been
> > drunk
> >> >>> when
> >> >>> he "thought" that one up too!
> >> >>If you are going to blame these lives on Bush then you will have to
> > blame
> >> >>Clinton for the thousands of lives by his inaction around the world.
> >> > Is it America’s job to invade every country that has a less than
> >> > perfect
> >> > government?
> >> If it is in our national interest.
> > And is it SOP to decide national interest on an agenda that, through
> > exposed
> > memos, was in the planning stages the second week of bush’s new
> > administration in 2001? What happens if we "rush to war" without knowing
> > all
> > the facts and speed up the process so that we WON’T have all the facts?
> > You
> > must agree that noone should ever enter a war without and exit strategy,
> > don’t you? Please, in light of all the hindsight, you don’t see this as
> > any
> > other than a mistake?
> The Pentagon has for many years developed plans to invade each and every
> country on the face of the earth. And, these plans are updated on a
periodic
> basis.
> Rush to war? Saddam’s Iraq was under UN sanctions that the UN would not
> enforce so we enforced them. There was a 10 year "rush" to war. A war is
not
> a start-up business and an exit strategy is not always needed. What is our
> exit strategy for Japan and Germany, we are still there some 60 years
later?
> Invading Iraq was not a mistake then and is not a mistake now. You need to
> do a little more research on our national interests in the long term
before
> deciding if invading Iraq was a mistake.
The pentagon also has exit strategies for these plans. Where are they now or
did they not work?
Glad to meet one of the last 30% and dwindling fast, of Americans that still
support a losing commander in chief’s flawed decision. I was in a meager 30%
of Americans once too a few years back but that was the 30% that didn’t want
this war until the facts were in. They are now in but some remain blind to
them. Hopefully, you have not and will not lose anyone close to you in this
modern day Vietnam. I’m sure you will also support the draft bill when it
comes up to replace the depleted ranks of our national military as well as
the increased taxes to help pay for it.
"When people speak to you about a preventive war, you
tell them to go and fight it. After my experience,
I have come to hate war. War settles nothing."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower
"When the fighting starts, we are sure that intelligent conversation has
come to an end."
Ike again
"War settles nothing."
Dwight D. Eisenhower
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security,
unemployment
insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not
hear of
that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter
group,
of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are
a few
Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman
from
other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
–President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1952
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 15:12:45 GMT, "SOME BAD HAT HARRY"
<badhatha…@yahoo.com> wrote:
>And is it SOP to decide national interest on an agenda that, through exposed
>memos, was in the planning stages the second week of bush’s new
>administration in 2001? What happens if we "rush to war" without knowing all
>the facts and speed up the process so that we WON’T have all the facts? You
>must agree that noone should ever enter a war without and exit strategy,
>don’t you? Please, in light of all the hindsight, you don’t see this as any
>other than a mistake?
Was it really in the planning stage, or was Bush’s team studying
various scenarios and determing what would be the best way to
counterract them?
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 14:10:45 GMT, "SOME BAD HAT HARRY"
<badhatha…@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Let’s not forget the almost 2000 dead Americans thanks to dubya’s lies of
>WMD and "imminent danger from Iraq" to the US. He could have been drunk when
>he "thought" that one up too!
I thought we went to war because (a) Saddam thumbed his nose at the UN
resolutions, and (b) Republicans AND Democrats alike voted for it.
"The Etobian" <p…@myway.com> wrote in message
news:93cnl1ltag73fakgeslihom1smoamm4336@4ax.com…
> On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 14:10:45 GMT, "SOME BAD HAT HARRY"
> <badhatha…@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Let’s not forget the almost 2000 dead Americans thanks to dubya’s lies of
> >WMD and "imminent danger from Iraq" to the US. He could have been drunk
when
> >he "thought" that one up too!
> I thought we went to war because (a) Saddam thumbed his nose at the UN
> resolutions, and (b) Republicans AND Democrats alike voted for it.
The vote was based on what the administration misrepresented as facts. It’s
fairly common knowledge I thought.
On 22 Oct 2005 14:03:09 -0700, "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend"
<xeton2…@yahoo.com> was understood to have stated the following:
>> It’s called "The Kennedy Maneuver." Hey, if it works for dimocrapic
>> senators, it should work for the common folk.
>Yup and he was so charged and pled guilty. Took his medicine like a
>man.
Took his medicine like a man? When he left the scene for 11 or so
hours to sober up before reporting the incident to anyone? Obviously
you’ve been spending too much time at the bath houses if you believe
that’s the actions of a man.
And still Teddy got away with murder in the process. Must be nice to
be a senator.
–
"Do we operate under a system of equal justice under law? Or is there one system for the average citizen and another for the high and mighty?" ~ Senator Ted Kennedy, 1973
—
When asked if Sentator Kennedy would consider a Presidential Nomination for the next election, Ted responded by stating "I’ll drive off that bridge when I come to it."
—
Kennedy to Search Iraqi Rivers for WMD
by Scott Ott
(2003-01-21) — Senator Edward "Ted" Kennedy, D-MA, offered to help the U.N. weapons inspectors by personally searching the bottoms of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers for canisters of gas or biological agents.
The Senator, who had some experience diving on a submerged metal object in 1969, said, "Each citizen must do what he can to support the effort to disarm Saddam. I’m going to see if I can get to the bottom of this thing…as it were. I’m hoping to come up with something…uh…again, as it were."
Sen. Kennedy declined to discuss the specifics of his previous diving experience.
—
NEW ORLEANS, Louisiana — Ted Kennedy announced today that he will lead a team of SCUBA divers to search for any survivors who might be left from the Katrina aftermath.
"I have unique experience in this area," said Kennedy. "We will try and try to dive down and find survivors beneath the flood waters. We will do everything possible. We cannot fail. We must not."
A reporter mentioned to Kennedy that surely there would be no survivors under the flood waters at this point in time. "It wasn’t safe," said Kennedy. "How could we dive to find survivors when it wasn’t safe? The important thing is that I tried. I did everything I could to dive down and find survivors."
In article <93cnl1ltag73fakgeslihom1smoamm4…@4ax.com>,
The Etobian <p…@myway.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 14:10:45 GMT, "SOME BAD HAT HARRY"
><badhatha…@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Let’s not forget the almost 2000 dead Americans thanks to dubya’s lies of
>>WMD and "imminent danger from Iraq" to the US. He could have been drunk when
>>he "thought" that one up too!
>I thought we went to war because (a) Saddam thumbed his nose at the UN
>resolutions, and (b) Republicans AND Democrats alike voted for it.
Don’t forget
c) Saddam took a shot at Bush’s daddy.
—
There’s no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 16:28:06 GMT, "SOME BAD HAT HARRY"
<badhatha…@yahoo.com> was understood to have stated the following:
>The vote was based on what the administration misrepresented as facts. It’s
And it appears the facts were misrepresented TO the administration.
>fairly common knowledge I thought.
Evidently not. There’s still people out there stupid enough to believe
Clinton was responsible for a prosperous economy.
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 00:52:15 -0400, The Laura Bush Murdered Her
Boyfriend Blade
<the_blade@the_mouth_of_Laura_Bush_Murdered_Her_Boyfriend.cum> was
understood to have stated the following:
>Ted ‘waddya mean you are pregnant and can not swim’ Kennedy:
>> It’s called "The Kennedy Maneuver." Hey, if it works for dimocrapic
>> senators, it should work for the common folk.
>You keep forgetting: there are two sets of laws – one for the elites
>(like that garbage scow kennedy) and another much more strict for the
>rest of us.
I remember it well; it should be obvious from my .sig.
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 14:10:45 GMT, "SOME BAD HAT HARRY"
<badhatha…@yahoo.com> was understood to have stated the following:
>Let’s not forget the almost 2000 dead Americans thanks to dubya’s lies of
>WMD and "imminent danger from Iraq" to the US. He could have been drunk when
>he "thought" that one up too!
If there weren’t any WMD, why didn’t Saddam go along with UN
inspections? Why was it Clinton enacted sanctions again?
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 12:49:08 -0400, in misc.transport.road
Ted ‘waddya mean you are pregnant and can not swim’ Kennedy
<s…@microsoft.com> wrote in
<kkfnl1p9itoopj84te7a8cavgvhmbce…@4ax.com>:
>On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 14:10:45 GMT, "SOME BAD HAT HARRY"
><badhatha…@yahoo.com> was understood to have stated the following:
>>Let’s not forget the almost 2000 dead Americans thanks to dubya’s lies of
>>WMD and "imminent danger from Iraq" to the US. He could have been drunk when
>>he "thought" that one up too!
>If there weren’t any WMD, why didn’t Saddam go along with UN
>inspections? Why was it Clinton enacted sanctions again?
Part of his power show. Yes, there were sanctions, Saddam was not a nice
person and he seemed incapable of realizing that he had lost the first
war. Of course, he also thought the US said it was okay to invade
Kuwait, an error that wasn’t completely his fault.
Notice that we have not invaded countries with _real_ weapons of mass
destruction, nor have we invaded the country most responsible for the
Islamic madmen, Saudi Arabia.
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 15:52:36 GMT, "SOME BAD HAT HARRY"
<badhatha…@yahoo.com> was understood to have stated the following:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>"Bert Robbins" <sc…@you.com> wrote in message
>news:Haqdnaz_w5ZhNsbeRVn-qw@comcast.com…
>> "SOME BAD HAT HARRY" <badhatha…@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:NLN6f.332$ZA3.82237@monger.newsread.com…
>> > "Bert Robbins" <sc…@you.com> wrote in message
>> > news:Yq2dnbErvvkrO8beRVn-hA@comcast.com…
>> >> "David Jensen" <da…@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:219nl1t0u6rn5bl85ivs42ro6e6fjr5q5a@4ax.com…
>> >> > On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 10:49:40 -0400, in misc.transport.road
>> >> > "Bert Robbins" <sc…@you.com> wrote in
>> >> > <s6udnb_Y7teePsbeRVn…@comcast.com>:
>> >> >>"SOME BAD HAT HARRY" <badhatha…@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> >>news:FRM6f.328$ZA3.81779@monger.newsread.com…
>> >> >>> "Michael Moroney" <moro…@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in
>message
>> >> >>> news:djelp3$bfs$1@pcls4.std.com…
>> >> >>>> "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" <xeton2…@yahoo.com> writes:
>> >> >>>> >Ted ‘waddya mean you are pregnant and can not swim’ Kennedy
>wrote:
>> >> >>>> >> >In any case, numerous motorists involved in collisions are
>> >> >>>> >> >taking
>> >> >>>> >> >the
>> >> >>>> >> >low road out — far away from the crash site. And it’s mostly
>> >> >>>> >> >because
>> >> >>>> >> >they have something to hide from authorities.
>> >> >>>> >> It’s called "The Kennedy Maneuver." Hey, if it works for
>> > dimocrapic
>> >> >>>> >> senators, it should work for the common folk.
>> >> >>>> >Yup and he was so charged and pled guilty. Took his medicine
>like
>> >> >>>> >a
>> >> >>>> >man.
>> >> >>>> Haha! He should have been charged with leaving the scene of a
>fatal
>> >> >>>> accident as well as DWI at least, but actually gets charged with a
>> > slap
>> >> >>>> on the wrist, and you say he took the slap on the wrist like a
>man?
>> >> >>>> Too
>> >> >>>> funny!
>> >> >>>> Imagine if the punishments you demand for anyone causing a fatal
>> >> >>>> accident
>> >> >>>> were applied to Fatboy, he’d still be in jail (if not executed),
>but
>> >> >>>> here
>> >> >>>> you are, so proud he took a slap on the wrist "like a man". Like
>a
>> >> >>>> worm
>> >> >>>> is more like it.
>> >> >>> Let’s not forget the almost 2000 dead Americans thanks to dubya’s
>> >> >>> lies
>> >> >>> of
>> >> >>> WMD and "imminent danger from Iraq" to the US. He could have been
>> > drunk
>> >> >>> when
>> >> >>> he "thought" that one up too!
>> >> >>If you are going to blame these lives on Bush then you will have to
>> > blame
>> >> >>Clinton for the thousands of lives by his inaction around the world.
>> >> > Is it America’s job to invade every country that has a less than
>> >> > perfect
>> >> > government?
>> >> If it is in our national interest.
>> > And is it SOP to decide national interest on an agenda that, through
>> > exposed
>> > memos, was in the planning stages the second week of bush’s new
>> > administration in 2001? What happens if we "rush to war" without knowing
>> > all
>> > the facts and speed up the process so that we WON’T have all the facts?
>> > You
>> > must agree that noone should ever enter a war without and exit strategy,
>> > don’t you? Please, in light of all the hindsight, you don’t see this as
>> > any
>> > other than a mistake?
>> The Pentagon has for many years developed plans to invade each and every
>> country on the face of the earth. And, these plans are updated on a
>periodic
>> basis.
>> Rush to war? Saddam’s Iraq was under UN sanctions that the UN would not
>> enforce so we enforced them. There was a 10 year "rush" to war. A war is
>not
>> a start-up business and an exit strategy is not always needed. What is our
>> exit strategy for Japan and Germany, we are still there some 60 years
>later?
>> Invading Iraq was not a mistake then and is not a mistake now. You need to
>> do a little more research on our national interests in the long term
>before
>> deciding if invading Iraq was a mistake.
>The pentagon also has exit strategies for these plans. Where are they now or
>did they not work?
>Glad to meet one of the last 30% and dwindling fast, of Americans that still
>support a losing commander in chief’s flawed decision. I was in a meager 30%
>of Americans once too a few years back but that was the 30% that didn’t want
>this war until the facts were in. They are now in but some remain blind to
>them. Hopefully, you have not and will not lose anyone close to you in this
>modern day Vietnam. I’m sure you will also support the draft bill when it
>comes up to replace the depleted ranks of our national military as well as
>the increased taxes to help pay for it.
>"When people speak to you about a preventive war, you
> tell them to go and fight it. After my experience,
> I have come to hate war. War settles nothing."
> – Dwight D. Eisenhower
So Dwight would have preferred the Germans go unchecked in WWII?
>"When the fighting starts, we are sure that intelligent conversation has
>come to an end."
>Ike again
So Dwight would have preferred the Japanese go unchecked in WWII?
>"War settles nothing."
>Dwight D. Eisenhower
How about the American Revolution?
>"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security,
>unemployment
>insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not
>hear of
>that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter
>group,
>of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are
>a few
>Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman
>from
>other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
>–President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1952
And yet Dwight doesn’t understand the value of war. Doesn’t seem like
an intelligent president IMO.