Quote:
Originally Posted by Schneed10
A number of quarrels with your points. You're making a lot of assumptions here, assumptions which would naturally lead you to believe I'm being illogical. Let me clear it up for you, you might see more logic:
You seem to think I'm pulling some sort of "dangerous maneuver." It's really quite simple and not dangerous at all. I usually cruise in the left lane. If someone comes up at a sane rate seeking to pass, I move over and let them by. If someone comes up at a reckless rate or tails me, I stay right where I am and I match speeds with the car to my right so he has few options to get around. Ultimately, all I'm doing is going a constant speed. My eyes are faced forward, I'm at 10 & 2, and I'm ignoring the guy behind me. There's no way that can be construed as dangerous, unless you actually want to blame me for the angry response I get from the bozo behind me. And that would be absurd.
You'll never see me swerve from one lane to the next in order to try one of these blockades. It would make no sense to take on more risk myself in order to reduce the risk posed by the bozos on the road.
Another quarrel, who said the insurance companies have proof that blockades do more harm than good? You're extrapolating that from the point that "people sitting in the left lane is the #1 cause of road rage." Which I'm not even willing to blindly accept, by the way, without seeing proof, and furthermore I find it irrelevant because the emotional reaction by the road-rage-ee is the proximate cause of any accident. Just because someone gets pissed off doesn't mean they're excused of responsibility for their own actions. And like I said, I don't buy that crappy stat anyway, you're going to have to prove it to me. I would venture to guess that someone going 95+ MPH without road rage is more likely to be involved in a fatal accident than someone road raging while he's stuck behind a guy going 75. There is logic there: speed reduces the margin of error and is a greater factor in causing accidents than angry responses at a slower speed.
So until you bring me something other than saying "I think a cop would say this", or naming some lame anecdotal insurance industry line without a link to back it up, then I think you're the one without the cogent, logical argument.
|
1st off, you never described your "procedures" for your "blockades" until now. I've got a quarrel with your method here. How on earth do you know how fast someone was going when they came up behind you as you were "cruising" in the left lane? While you were "10-2 with eyes forward" did you somehow manage to pace their speed to a tee? Please. You have no way of knowing if they were going 81 or 89. So I call bullshit on that one. And the fact that you "cruise" in the left lane with no intention of exceeding the speed limit implies the antagonistic, entitled nature of your behavior.
You didn't even acknowledge my points/question regarding your rest-stop confrontations.
As far as the insurance company thing- I don't doubt Daseal, he's the one that came up with that. I'm not going to mine the web for insurance company surveys. It makes sense though. Let's say, hypothetically since it will make you happy, that blocking the fast lane is a big cause (not even the #1, just a big cause) of road rage. And it's pretty much a fact that road rage causes accidents. It's a simple equation really. What you're doing lends to road rage. You can say someone with a cool head going in a straight line at 90 is more likely to cause an accident than a pissed off rager at 75. That point can be argued just as easily as it can be agreed with.
You're out to provoke. And if what you're doing causes road rage, you just shrug your shoulders and say, "their reaction to my behavior is their problem."
I'm glad you basically admit that police officers would find your behavior unacceptable.