Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Wed Apr 08, 2020 18:18

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 68 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2004 17:45 
Offline
Banned
Banned

Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 12:47
Posts: 2291
JT wrote:
I can hardly - if at all - remember an occasion when I have seen <too many lane changes> in practice, whereas middle lane "hogging" is rampant


That is interesting. Here is an idea for you to think about. Perhaps you see this because you are impatient by nature? Perhaps if you were more patient, you might see too many lane changes? Here is another idea for you. SafeSpeed thinks speeding should be made OK because everybody is at it. You say that middle lane hogging is rampant, so should that be made OK as well?

_________________
I stole this .sig


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2004 18:01 
Offline
Banned
Banned

Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 12:47
Posts: 2291
Rigpig wrote:
And your weekly journey in a land most British Middle Lane Daydreamers will never see, let alone make the like of in their entire lives has just what particular relevance? Unless you are just name-dropping of course :wink:


Speak for yourself. Not everyone is parochial. The relevance is that long journeys are made routinely, here in Europe and elsewhere. You can't seriously expect everyone to stop every 20 miles for a rest, can you? And you equally can't expect everyone to do the hoky koky for a 1000 miles at a stretch! Get real.

Rigpig wrote:
It seems that the ISO 9000 standard riposte against accusations of middle lane hogging is to argue at the extreme. Hence, moving correctly from lane to lane as traffic dictates becomes "yo-yoing" or "zig-zagging" or "nipping in and out". Nothing beats sexing things up to make the point eh?


I’m welsh, so what do you expect!

_________________
I stole this .sig


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2004 18:18 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6735
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
basingwerk wrote:
The Highway code actually says You should drive in the left-hand lane if the road ahead is clear. If you are overtaking a number of slower moving vehicles it may be safer to remain in the centre or outer lanes until the manoeuvre is completed rather than continually changing lanes

Also the IAM advanced driving manual says:

"Your cruising speed will probably mean that you spend a good proportion of your motorway journey in the centre lane, so move over (after the usual mirror and shoulder check and right-turn signal) when it becomes necessary. Return to the left-hand lane whenever it is reasonably clear after overtaking has been completed".

and

"Return to the left when you can, but do not do this so over-zealously that you end up constantly skipping from one lane to another."

Some drivers on the motorway clearly do do this over-zealously - you see them diving into Lane 1 and then coming out again ten seconds later, with nothing having passed them, which to my mind is utterly pointless.

Obviously you shouldn't stay in Lane 2 if Lane 1 is clear for some way ahead, but given that each lane change manoeuvre carries a small risk, very frequent lane changes are likely to undermine safety.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2004 18:25 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
basingwerk wrote:
That is interesting. Here is an idea for you to think about. Perhaps you see this because you are impatient by nature? Perhaps if you were more patient, you might see too many lane changes? Here is another idea for you. SafeSpeed thinks speeding should be made OK because everybody is at it. You say that middle lane hogging is rampant, so should that be made OK as well?


Nah. That won't wash. We have to distinguish.

Reckless and careless speeding should clearly be prosecuted, as should careless and obstructive middle lane hogging.

I would like to see speeding in safe and appropriate circumstances legitimised, although the preferred route is via intelligent policing and discretion. See:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/speeding.html

Funnily enough though, I do believe that there's an excellent case for some middle lane driving to be regarded as best practice. If I'm on an empty (and I do mean empty) motorway I drive in L2. I'm further from danger and I can escape a hazard onto sound tarmac in either direction. If a vehicle appears behind I move to L1 before he's within a 1/4 mile. For this reason I'd rather not see a rule that requires keeping left - I'd rather see a rule that required one not to obstruct traffic behind.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2004 18:36 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 09:59
Posts: 3544
Location: Shropshire
basingwerk wrote:
Speak for yourself. Not everyone is parochial. The relevance is that long journeys are made routinely, here in Europe and elsewhere. You can't seriously expect everyone to stop every 20 miles for a rest, can you? And you equally can't expect everyone to do the hoky koky for a 1000 miles at a stretch! Get real.


Don't be so flamin' ridiculous.
You only mentioned 500 and 1,000 mile journeys yourself in the first place in a feeble attempt to justify lane indiscipline. I don't doubt that, say, Russians routinely make mega-journeys across the snow-blown steppes - but guess what, the number of stops they make and the interval between is utterly irrelevant. We're talking about UK MOTORWAYS here.
If you want to talk about lane discipline on trans-continental expressways (or whatever) start a thread about it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2004 18:47 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 09:59
Posts: 3544
Location: Shropshire
SafeSpeed wrote:
Funnily enough though, I do believe that there's an excellent case for some middle lane driving to be regarded as best practice. If I'm on an empty (and I do mean empty) motorway I drive in L2. I'm further from danger and I can escape a hazard onto sound tarmac in either direction. If a vehicle appears behind I move to L1 before he's within a 1/4 mile. For this reason I'd rather not see a rule that requires keeping left - I'd rather see a rule that required one not to obstruct traffic behind.


Can you see how driving up an empty motorway in L2, when the HC clearly indicates you should be in L1 could be construed as irresponsible lane hogging though?
Have any of the 'hazards' you may have to negotiate (on this empty motorway) ever materialised?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2004 19:00 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 10:47
Posts: 920
Location: South Bucks
SafeSpeed wrote:
If I'm on an empty (and I do mean empty) motorway I drive in L2. I'm further from danger and I can escape a hazard onto sound tarmac in either direction. If a vehicle appears behind I move to L1 before he's within a 1/4 mile. For this reason I'd rather not see a rule that requires keeping left - I'd rather see a rule that required one not to obstruct traffic behind.


Hmm. Have to disagree with you on this one. Hard shoulder may have some detritus but it's not likely to be hazardous. I would prefer to see drivers develop the habit of returning to the leftmost available lane at ALL times rather than dependent on traffic. Not saying the way you do it is wrong in principle but not good practice to recommend to most drivers, imo.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2004 20:15 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 01:48
Posts: 526
Location: Netherlands
Rigpig wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
Funnily enough though, I do believe that there's an excellent case for some middle lane driving to be regarded as best practice. If I'm on an empty (and I do mean empty) motorway I drive in L2. I'm further from danger and I can escape a hazard onto sound tarmac in either direction. If a vehicle appears behind I move to L1 before he's within a 1/4 mile. For this reason I'd rather not see a rule that requires keeping left - I'd rather see a rule that required one not to obstruct traffic behind.


Can you see how driving up an empty motorway in L2, when the HC clearly indicates you should be in L1 could be construed as irresponsible lane hogging though?
Have any of the 'hazards' you may have to negotiate (on this empty motorway) ever materialised?

I'm definitely on SafeSpeed's side here for several reasons:

1. If there is no traffic being inconvenienced, the point is purely technical/academic. Why is it considered "good practice" to keep to the left?... to make room for other road users. No other road users, no problem.
2. When the road is clear, positioning to keep good road on either side does provide a form of safety blanket. These "hazards" are indeed very rare (I once saw a dog crossing the clear motorway in front of me late one night, creepy! - but that was years ago) but it does no harm, so why not?
3. My main reason: Bad quality road surface in L1 through HGV etc. usage causes car wheels to behave uncomfortably as if trying to follow the "track". Admittedly I have come across this far more in the Netherlands than in the UK, but I invariably find that the L2 road surface is better. And thats a good enough reason for me.

Disclaimer: all the above relates to motorway situations where no traffic is going to be at all inconvenienced by me using L2.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2004 20:33 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 00:24
Posts: 2400
Location: Kendal, Cumbria
Difficult one, the "empty motorway" scenario. To take Paul's theory to its logical conclusion I suppose we ought to exactly straddle the lines between L1 and L2, so we have one and a half lanes of tarmac available either side should the worst happen, eg rear tyre blowing out. But this seems a bit odd to say the least!

The point about the surface in L1 can be an issue. My current car has stiffened suspension and low profile tyres, so it suffers a bit with "tramlining" in L1, though it does generally appear to be specific sections of motorway that suffer from this.

But when all is said and done, the main issue here is driving with consideration for other road users. If the motorway is empty then it doesn't really matter which lane you prefer to drive in, or even if you choose to carve elegantly from L1 to L3 and back again through RH bends and vice versa!

No, what matters is how you behave in relation to other traffic. And to take Basingwerk's extreme view, it is indeed wrong to swerve sharply from lane to lane every 50 yards, just as it is wrong to sit in L2 while L1 is empty whilst someone behind is wishing to overtake. But which of these driving errors is most common? Clearly the second, and this is not because I am "impatient". Basingwerk, would you deliberately block a shop doorway for five or ten minutes at a time, simply because you were too lazy to step out of the way? I think not, but even assuming you did, would you then regard me as being "impatient" if I arrived and asked you to step aside so I could gain access?

Of course that would be ridiculous (wouldn't it?). So why do people suddenly lose all reason when they get behind the wheel, and suddenly decide it's perfectly reasonable to prevent other people from going about their business, simply through a combination of idleness and bloody-mindedness?

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2004 22:43 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Observer wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
If I'm on an empty (and I do mean empty) motorway I drive in L2. I'm further from danger and I can escape a hazard onto sound tarmac in either direction. If a vehicle appears behind I move to L1 before he's within a 1/4 mile. For this reason I'd rather not see a rule that requires keeping left - I'd rather see a rule that required one not to obstruct traffic behind.


Hmm. Have to disagree with you on this one. Hard shoulder may have some detritus but it's not likely to be hazardous. I would prefer to see drivers develop the habit of returning to the leftmost available lane at ALL times rather than dependent on traffic. Not saying the way you do it is wrong in principle but not good practice to recommend to most drivers, imo.


I'm not "recommending" the practice.

But I can't agree with you about the hard shoulder. It's clearly quite a dangerous place - there might be broken down vehicles, or parts of vehicles, pedestrians (drivers looking for an emergency phone), broken glass, ridges of gravel and all manner of nasties. The hard shoulder is a last resort as an escape lane.

The only problem with using L2 on an empty motorway is the effect on faster traffic. To make a good safe job of using L2, one has to be effective at rear observation, and I wouldn't recommend it because some drivers aren't so clever with their rear observation.

But if they tried to make keeping left a law, I'd object. Instead, a useful law would be about not obstructing faster traffic behind.

There are other times when there's a big safety benefit in staying further right than a strict application of "keep left" would imply. For example when rounding a left hand bend, taking a further right position enhances vision - sometimes a lot. But I'd never enhance my vision at the expense of obstructing a vehicle behind. So again any law or advice should focus on the effect on other traffic - not on compromising my best road position.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2004 22:50 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Rigpig wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
Funnily enough though, I do believe that there's an excellent case for some middle lane driving to be regarded as best practice. If I'm on an empty (and I do mean empty) motorway I drive in L2. I'm further from danger and I can escape a hazard onto sound tarmac in either direction. If a vehicle appears behind I move to L1 before he's within a 1/4 mile. For this reason I'd rather not see a rule that requires keeping left - I'd rather see a rule that required one not to obstruct traffic behind.


Can you see how driving up an empty motorway in L2, when the HC clearly indicates you should be in L1 could be construed as irresponsible lane hogging though?


I can't see "hogging" making any sense unless someone is inconvenienced.

Rigpig wrote:
Have any of the 'hazards' you may have to negotiate (on this empty motorway) ever materialised?


Hell yes. I've encountered all kinds of debris and a few animals.

I've done a lot of driving on empty motorways over the years. I've often chosen to drive overnight to avoid busier traffic. I appreciate that "down south" there are few empty motorways these days, but the upper reaches of the M6 and the M74 are often pretty close to empty in the early hours of the morning.

When it's a few lorries in L1, and not much else, I do my L2 thing and move out to L3 to pass the trucks. Maximum safety margin - especially these days when so many of the truckers show signs of falling asleep.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2004 23:14 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 10:47
Posts: 920
Location: South Bucks
SafeSpeed wrote:
I'm not "recommending" the practice.

But I can't agree with you about the hard shoulder. It's clearly quite a dangerous place - there might be broken down vehicles, or parts of vehicles, pedestrians (drivers looking for an emergency phone), broken glass, ridges of gravel and all manner of nasties. The hard shoulder is a last resort as an escape lane.


Fair enough. Can't disagree with that. If rear observation is good, use of middle lane does have a safety benefit (perhaps small but still a benefit).

My concern was that most drivers' "road awareness" could bear improvement so I'd prefer a 'return left' habit instilled than advocate lane two driving for a small safety benefit. I think we agree (as usual).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 22, 2004 09:06 
Offline
Banned
Banned

Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 12:47
Posts: 2291
RigPig wrote:
… UK MOTORWAYS …


Keep your shirt on. When M-Ways get congested, the normal lane rules become undefined. The lane system in some parts of north America is a good solution for long distance driving and for congested roads, and should be considered on Motorways here, especially ones like the 25. But OK then. The section of the UK Highway code we are talking about, without spin but with the hard-shoulder bits omitted, is as follows.

You should drive in the left-hand lane if the road ahead is clear. If you are overtaking a number of slower moving vehicles it may be safer to remain in the centre or outer lanes until the manoeuvre is completed rather than continually changing lanes. Return to the left-hand lane once you have overtaken all the vehicles or if you are delaying traffic behind you. Slow moving or speed restricted vehicles should always remain in the left-hand lane of the carriageway unless overtaking.

There is clearly a bias here towards should, not MUST. There also seems to be significant 'constructive ambiguity' in the phrasing. Let's deconstruct it as bit.

You should drive in the left-hand lane if the road ahead is clear

First bit of 'constructive ambiguity' lies in the word 'clear'. How clear? As clear as the eye can see? Totally clear? Clear for a 100 yards? Clear as far as the length of your stopping distance? Clear enough? As you can see, it is not clear what is meant by ‘clear’.

If you are overtaking a number of slower moving vehicles it may be safer to remain in the centre or outer lanes until the manoeuvre is completed rather than continually changing lanes

Some more 'constructive ambiguity' here. For example, the redundancy in 'slower moving vehicles' - you cannot overtake faster moving vehicles! Also, it only says 'may', not ‘should’ or ‘must’. So how does one decide whether to or not, as 'may' is no advice at all. And if there is a number of vehicles that you are overtaking, how far apart must they be before you rejoin the lane? 10 yards, a 100 yards, a mile? Again, and similarly to the 'rule' about 'clear road ahead', the code offers no guidance.

Return to the left-hand lane once you have overtaken all the vehicles or if you are delaying traffic behind you

How long should the gap be before you can say that you have overtaken all the vehicles? Usually, there is just one more, and then another and so on. Do it mean ‘all the vehicles in the lane on the whole motorway’. I doubt it. More 'constructive ambiguity' I'm afraid. And how does one define ‘delaying traffic behind you’? It is not possible to drive in front of someone without a risk of delaying them, because they may be following you or trying to pass you – how do you know the difference? And what does 'or' mean in this context? Is in inclusive or exclusive? Should I pull in if I am delaying traffic behind me even when there is no gap! What takes priority, my progress or the car behind me? Again, the code is vague.

Slow moving or speed restricted vehicles should always remain in the left-hand lane of the carriageway unless overtaking

More still! What speed is meant by 'slow moving'. One may interpret this to mean that a car near the absolute top limit of 70 is not slow moving, and so there appears to be no need for such vehicles to remain in the left-hand lane unless it is totally clear!

So there you are. It is maddeningly vague and breaks down entirely on congested roads! All we can really glean from it is that it is best to stick to the leftmost lane that makes sense at the time. Of course, this debate is about 'what makes sense at the time', and patient drivers may differ from impatient drivers in their interpretation of that. Such is life, RigPig and JT, and ranting at me about good lane discipline won’t work because there is no shared view of what that means!

_________________
I stole this .sig


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 22, 2004 09:14 
Offline
Banned
Banned

Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 12:47
Posts: 2291
PeterE wrote:
Also the IAM advanced driving manual says:

"Your cruising speed will probably mean that you spend a good proportion of your motorway journey in the centre lane, so move over (after the usual mirror and shoulder check and right-turn signal) when it becomes necessary. Return to the left-hand lane whenever it is reasonably clear after overtaking has been completed".

and

"Return to the left when you can, but do not do this so over-zealously that you end up constantly skipping from one lane to another."



That sounds practical, and better than the code. That's about right, yes. Skipping from one lane to another all the time is as bad as hogging. Spot on.

_________________
I stole this .sig


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 22, 2004 09:42 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 00:24
Posts: 2400
Location: Kendal, Cumbria
basingwerk wrote:
So there you are. It is maddeningly vague and breaks down entirely on congested roads! All we can really glean from it is that it is best to stick to the leftmost lane that makes sense at the time. Of course, this debate is about 'what makes sense at the time', and patient drivers may differ from impatient drivers in their interpretation of that. Such is life, RigPig and JT, and ranting at me about good lane discipline won’t work because there is no shared view of what that means!

Strangely enough I have no problems interpreting this rule, all it needs is a little common sense! Like the rest of the HC, it offers guidance in how to apply judgement to an everyday situation. I would suggest that if you drive with a modicum of common sense it would be blatantly apparent what constitutes over-zealous returning to Lane 1; similarly if someone can't judge when they are delaying traffic behind then I'd seriously question the wisdom of their being allowed to use the motorway in the first place!

No, left to our own devices we can all apply "rules of thumb" about what constututes a reasonable minimum sized gap before we return to Lane 1. Clearly such self imposed judgement varies from person to person but in practice such variation would be both minimal and acceptable. To illustrate this, imagine we took say 10 photos of typical forward views from L2, showing various lengths of unoccupied L1, from a few car lengths up to half a mile. Now if we showed them to 100 motorists I'm pretty sure they'd all pick more or less the same gaps as being acceptable to return to, and the same ones as being "not worth it". I really don't think this judgement, nor the interpretation of the HC is the problem.

The problem is that a percentage of motorists choose to ignore this judgement and indeed the HC in practice, simply because they slip into a dazed "cruising mode" when they get on the motorway. Instead of regarding L2 & L3 as overtaking lanes they subconsciously assume ownership of L2 as the "cruising lane" and decline any further consideration either of gaps in L1 or of traffic behind - the two things that this HC rule deals with. The problem is not a lack of accurate definition nor a lack of interpretation, but a complete lack of consideration.

As I said a post or two back, I may well be misinterpreting you Basingwerk but your post seemed to absolutely typify this thoughtless and ignorant "cruising" attitude. This seemed to be reinforced by your later insistence that the fault lay with drivers behind who you brand as "impatient", merely because you are delaying them!

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 22, 2004 10:16 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 09:59
Posts: 3544
Location: Shropshire
basingwerk wrote:
Keep your shirt on.


I only metaphorically removed it beacuse of your infuriating insistance on referring to a non-representative (of UK driving) scenario and then instructed me to get real.

Did you get your head shoved down the toilet a lot when you were at school? :wink:

\"JT wrote:
A well constructed sensible argument.


Thanks JT, that's how I see it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 22, 2004 10:24 
Offline
Banned
Banned

Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 12:47
Posts: 2291
JT wrote:
Strangely enough I have no problems interpreting this rule, all it needs is a little common sense!


How would you know that you are interpreting this rule well? You are are poor judge of that, are you not?

JT wrote:
I would suggest that if you drive with a modicum of common sense it would be blatantly apparent what constitutes over-zealous returning to Lane 1;


On the one hand, you say that this 'sense' is common, and on the other you say that hogging is 'rampant'. If the sense is common, then people must be ignoring it, or they do not sense it the same as you do.

JT wrote:
similarly if someone can't judge when they are delaying traffic behind then I'd seriously question the wisdom of their being allowed to use the motorway in the first place


But you have no way to tell if a person can tell they are delaying traffic behind or not, so what is the point of your remark? How would you find these people? What are you saying?

JT wrote:
left to our own devices we can all apply "rules of thumb" about what constututes a reasonable minimum sized gap before we return to Lane 1.


So, if people apply "rules of thumb", why are you complaining? Clearly if hogging is rampant, persons do not use "rules of thumb" when left to thier own devices!

JT wrote:
The problem is that a percentage of motorists choose to ignore this judgement and indeed the HC in practice, simply because they slip into a dazed "cruising mode" when they get on the motorway.


That is one end of the spectrum. At the other end are the zig-zag / in and out brigade who also don't know what they are doing.

JT wrote:
As I said a post or two back, I may well be misinterpreting you Basingwerk but your post seemed to absolutely typify this thoughtless and ignorant "cruising" attitude.



Your post seemed to typify the zig-zag / in and out brigade who don't know what they are doing. Perhaps I have misinterpreted you.

_________________
I stole this .sig


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 22, 2004 10:52 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 09:59
Posts: 3544
Location: Shropshire
basingwerk wrote:
JT wrote:
The problem is that a percentage of motorists choose to ignore this judgement and indeed the HC in practice, simply because they slip into a dazed "cruising mode" when they get on the motorway.


That is one end of the spectrum. At the other end are the zig-zag / in and out brigade who also don't know what they are doing.


OK, I reckon we can all summon up a mental image of someone who won't move out of the centre lane.
So what do you mean by zig-zagging? Please give us a definition we can relate to, eg how short a time, in your interpretation, does our hypothetical zig-zagger spend in L1 before moving back to L2 to overtake then back into L1 again? I'll wager it differs from mine, and you'll have to trust me here, I won't change my mind just to conflict with what you say..if anything.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 22, 2004 11:17 
Offline
Banned
Banned

Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 12:47
Posts: 2291
Rigpig wrote:
OK, I reckon we can all summon up a mental image of someone who won't move out of the centre lane. So what do you mean by zig-zagging?


I won’t take that tack if you don’t mind, but that is a good idea, so let's push this mind game a bit further, and we might show something.

Can I take it that the mental image you summon up always has you as the person behind ? It is never the mental image of you as the person in front, is it? Could it be that you are perfect and have never done that? Hm.. I doubt that.

Now picture a long queue in the supermarket. The mental image you summon up always has you as the person queuing, never the one who is taking a long time to get served, doesn't it? This is the same psychology, and it is caused by a Darwinian instinct in all of us, although some us are aware of this and some aren’t. Those who aren't aware of this 'greed' instinct behave like animals when confronted by a resource constraint. That is just nature asserting itself, and there is nothing wrong with it. Those who aware behave like people when confronted by a resource constraint.

Now practise being patient, and summon up the image of you waiting for a gap to get back in, and knowing that some traffic is behind you. You don’t want to give up your space, because you have to rely on some else to let you have it back later, don’t you.

Summon up the image of you at the head of a long queue in the supermarket but taking a long time. In this way, you will begin to understand why it is always people in front of you who are annoying, while those behind, well you just don't care as much, really. This is a psychological issue, related deeply to ownership and inability to interrelate impartially.

Rigpig wrote:
Please give us a definition we can relate to, eg how short a time, in your interpretation, does our hypothetical zig-zagger spend in L1 before moving back to L2 to overtake then back into L1 again?


That might be fruitless. For example, please give us a definition we can relate to, eg how long a time a person must spend in lane 2 before he becomes an obstacle - how many seconds, or how many gaps much he pass by, in your opinion. You see, it's not so easy now, is it?

Hope this helps.

_________________
I stole this .sig


Last edited by basingwerk on Fri Oct 22, 2004 11:35, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 22, 2004 11:21 
Offline
Banned
Banned

Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 12:47
Posts: 2291
Sorry for the typo, I should have said:

Can I take it that the mental image you summon up always has you as the person behind ? It is never the mental image of you as the person in front, is it?

_________________
I stole this .sig


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 68 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.519s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]